D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Helldritch]

UPDATE!

I would like to thank you to remind me of the training rule. Going into my notes, now I remember why I had made this rule. Players had downvoted the training rule and this houserule was to compensate a bit for it as wizards were already the most played arcane characters. Now leveling is instaneous and I wanted to see more warlocks and sorcerers. Even that ruling was not a deterent so...

So I take a bit of my time to tell you that I have put the houserule in question to vote by the group(s) in question abiding by the RAW and put the training rule back in force or leave things as they are right now. 5 to 6 in favor of keeping things as they are (I do not get to vote on these matters). Players clearly prefer instantanous leveling instead of training. Fine by me.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It definitely takes a very strict reading of the text to arrive at the conclusion that the intent is for a wizard to be required to pay money for their class features.

That doesn't make the ruling unworkable, though... not automatically gaining spells was a piece of how the magic-user class was balanced back in the days before massive revisions to the entire paradigm of what balance should mean were made.

And if this rule doesn't agitate your players that want to play wizards (I'm genuinely surprised, but hey...) everything is fine. Hopefully they aren't silently enduring hating this rule on account of that old "the GM is always right" addage or believing that the only input they are allowed to give on rulings is to quit playing if they can't tough them out.

 

[Seramus]

Is the goal to try to discourage players from making wizards? If so, it seems effective at that and you might as well keep it.

The rule seems way more likely to annoy players than just saying "Hey, we've had a lot of wizards lately and it would be fun for me to mix it up."

Imposing penalties like this seems like a pretty small increase in fun for the DM, but a notable decrease in fun for any wizard players. Net negative.

That's the jist of my concern. It's obviously sand in the boot for this player, but keeping the rule seems unnecessary since he picked wizard anyway.

 

[Nebulous]

I would say it's too strict. I would worry more about Revivfy and such when 300gp of diamond dust magically appears in the cleric's pouch and he wants to cast the spell.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think you are being too strict at all. IMO the aspect of learning a new spell assumes time is spent outside of the adventure researching it, practicing, etc. as well as creating or copying the spell formula into your spellbook. We aren't talking tons of gold here, and I think learning spells during the adventure is a big NO-NO. IMO it should only be a downtime thing.

Now, if the player goes through the trouble and says "Next level I am planning to add Teleportation Circle and Wall of Force to my spellbook. That is 500 gp in components, inks, or whatever I will need. I am purchasing that stuff now while we're in town so I can add them during a day's rest in the field since I will need 10 hours per spell to practice and scribe them." In THAT cases, foresight is rewarded and the player can add the spells outside of downtime.

The game is about fun, but it is also about immersion, balance, and other things. Otherwise, it would be awesome for my fighter to have a vorpal sword, so why can't I have it??? Huh? Huh? I won't have fun without it!

 

[jsaving]

I wanted to see more warlocks and sorcerers.

Rather than focusing on whether this particular house-rule is a good idea, I'd recommend speaking frankly to your players about the broader issue of why you think your opinions about PC character classes should matter in the first place. If your reasons are sound, for example because a warlock or sorcerer would fill obvious deficiencies in the party, then by providing evidence you can persuade your players to favor warlocks/sorcerers in the future without needing to micro-manage them via house-rules. But if on the other hand your reasons aren't as sound, then perhaps your players can persuade you not to favor warlocks/sorcerers in the future, which would also negate the need to micro-manage them via house-rules.

Either way, the place to start is an honest discussion around the gaming table.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

While I'm happy to see a little reduction in the power of wizards, I think that this is definitely a houserule. I wouldn't regard it as too strict, provided the party's current circumstances are only a temporary, short-term situation.

However, the issue appears to be that your houserule was not made clear to the specific player who is currently playing a wizard before play began. Doesn't matter if any of the other players knew, to spring that sort of change to class mechanics on someone after play begins is . . . not a nice DM move.

Like Oofta said. Free of charge, but not of shipping.

Yeah. But if the contract said free and didn't mention shipping, you have a right to be ticked when you get the item and then find that you were charged for shipping anyway. Particularly if that means that you can't afford the batteries for it now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It was perfectly crystal clear from the beginning of 5th edition. This is the first time this player makes a wizard. This is the first time the ruling is brought to question.

Did you remind them of this rule? Because Fifth edition starting was five years ago, and if this is the first time this player made a wizard, and the first time the rule is being brought up at the table, I would say it is very likely they forgot about it

 

[Chaosmancer]

UPDATE!

I would like to thank you to remind me of the training rule. Going into my notes, now I remember why I had made this rule. Players had downvoted the training rule and this houserule was to compensate a bit for it as wizards were already the most played arcane characters. Now leveling is instaneous and I wanted to see more warlocks and sorcerers. Even that ruling was not a deterent so...

So I take a bit of my time to tell you that I have put the houserule in question to vote by the group(s) in question abiding by the RAW and put the training rule back in force or leave things as they are right now. 5 to 6 in favor of keeping things as they are (I do not get to vote on these matters). Players clearly prefer instantanous leveling instead of training. Fine by me.

Um, is the wizard player (the only player affected by this rule) the only dissenting vote? Because I can imagine hard feelings if they are being outvoted on their own character.

 

[dave2008]

Nope this is an example to clarify why I made this ruling. Would you make the spell just appear in the spell book. The wizard does not have any ink, not even a feather write with. So how does the spells appear? I am curious about the mechanic of spell writting itself in a spell book.

No, but I wouldn't charge them GP either. I require all characters to spend downtime activities to level up so it prevents this very issue.