3) The rule is an absolute digress from the rule and I am a monster for doing so.
Nobody is calling you a monster. The hyperbole gets in the way of actual discussion.
3) The rule is an absolute digress from the rule and I am a monster for doing so.
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.
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 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.
Why is this relevant?The player is rather on the power gaming side with a lot of rule lawyering mixed in.
Then just...let them play wizards without some arbitrary restriction to make izarding less fun.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).
yeah... where is the issue with players wanting to play wizards?Then just...let them play wizards without some arbitrary restriction to make izarding less fun.
The players prefer wizards. Why are you putting your preference above theirs?
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.
None. But I would like a bit more variety. I even removed concentration on Hex to see more warlocks... Wizards' versatility is hard to beat in the mind of my players...yeah... where is the issue with players wanting to play wizards?
1) Wizard are not less fun. The fundamentals are still the same. That is a harsh judgement as you never were at my table.Then just...let them play wizards without some arbitrary restriction to make izarding less fun.
The players prefer wizards. Why are you putting your preference above theirs?