log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Am I too strict?

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Why?

What I'm saying is that the book purposefully ignores ink costs for these 2 spells because the designers didn't want to tax the player for their character's evolution. It's a choice favoring conviniency and ease of play over simulationism. Maybe it's not for your group, or the OP's group, that's fine, but it's not a bug, it's a feature.
If the deliberate design creates inconsistent(not valid exceptions) rules, that's a design flaw. If you have a rule that says people can't fly, then you create a magical fly spell that's an exception, that's one thing. There's no such in game explanation for being able to write this spell without magical ink, but requiring that spell over there to be written in magical ink. The Wizard write up says nothing about magical ink oozing from the Wizard's pores as he has a flash of insight, allowing him the ink to scribe his two spells.

Having an issue with inconsistencies is also not simulationist. It's closer to gamist than anything else. Any game should have rules that are consistent, regardless of any intent(or not) to simulate something. If the Chess rules allowed the black player to move his knight twice every 4th time he moves his knight, that would be an equally inconsistent rule.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You take the theory class first, then go out in the field and put that theory into practice. When you're comfortable with that and ready to learn more theory, back into the classroom you go for another round of theory. That's how most training I've ever done tends to work - best example I can think of is a learn-to-sail course I took as a kid. First half of each lesson was classroom theory, second half was out on the water putting that theory into practice (or, more often, showing we hadn't listened to a word the instructor had just said in the class, but whatever... :) )

So, before 1st-level you're assumed to have already done that round of theory training - which can take years for anyone other than Fighters - in order to become whatever class you are. After you bump to 2nd you're up for another round of theory training into whatever new abilities that level provides, so you do it and then back into the field you go. Lather rinse repeat.
I can also go to school(which I did) and not learn everything that my profession needed me to know. On the job I learned a great deal about these additional things I need to know, as well as developing my own shortcuts and efficiencies and I got MUCH better at what I do without needing anymore theory.
 

Monayuris

Adventurer
@Helldritch in this case I believe you got it wrong. Those 2 spells learned when levelling up are not "copied" (which implies a source to copy from), they are added directly. The "copying a spell into the book" section refers to spells you find, and you don't "find" the spells you learn when levelling up.

The reference to "inks" being one of the reasons for the cost of copying is misleading. It's one of those unfortunate turd-ish legacies from past editions that designers like to keep around because think they're funny flavor, without carefully thinking that they might be taken too literally.

OTOH if you like ruling like that, I don't think it's bad, and I would be fine playing a Wizard in such a game. Costs more money but 5e PCs more often have a problem of how to spend their money rather than having not enough money to spend.
Certain wizard players enjoy these so-called 'turd-ish' (really now?) rules. Part of playing a wizard is immersing yourself in the role-playing of a scholar of magic. Maintaining a spellbook, discovering new scrolls of spells, and scribing them with magical inks are part of the character of the class.

The rules for scribing spells into spellbooks and copying spells are there for these players. They are there for players who, after having been consumed by dragon fire, get to feel smart for having made a skilled decision to scribe a backup spellbook during their downtime.

When I play wizard/magic-users, as soon as I have the money, I make a 'travelling' spellbook of my more useful spells and leave my primary safe away from adventuring. I have a backup in case my adventuring book is lost or destroyed. It is part of playing the class skillfully.

If you don't care about this stuff, the sorcerer is there for the less scholarly character.
 

roadtoad

aka skotothalamos
Maybe they appear by magic. ;)

But it's your game, and it sounds like he just didn't know your rules on it. Maybe take it easy on the poor guy who's just now learning how Wizards work in your world. If I were you, I'd cut this guy a little slack for now and let him get those spells into his book on credit. Make sure he knows that he will still have to pay the cost for those spells and what he'll have to pay in the future. He'll still have to pay the price, so he's not getting a huge advantage over time, but he doesn't feel blind-sided and unable to play the way he thought he could play for the next couple of sessions. By the time he makes 4th level, he'll be ready.
 

I also don't like this houserule and can see why the player could get annoyed when they actually start playing the class. Essentially, wizards are paying for their class features when others aren't and don't get those features until they get back to town unlike other classes. It would annoy me too.

I think the bigger point is that you say your rule is to discourage players from taking wizards, but that it isn't discouraging them. So the rule is a failure. That's not to comment on whether it is a good rule or not. It is simply not performing its function. Why would you use a rule if it isn't doing what it is supposed to do?
 

I also don't like this houserule and can see why the player could get annoyed when they actually start playing the class. Essentially, wizards are paying for their class features when others aren't and don't get those features until they get back to town unlike other classes. It would annoy me too.

I think the bigger point is that you say your rule is to discourage players from taking wizards, but that it isn't discouraging them. So the rule is a failure. That's not to comment on whether it is a good rule or not. It is simply not performing its function. Why would you use a rule if it isn't doing what it is supposed to do?
1) All character types have money sink. If you take time to read posts above, you'll see that it is not that the player does not have fun. It is because he wants to get his laboratory faster by having a slack where others did and do not.

2) Yes, in a sense, I still do not see a lot of warlocks and sorcerers. Wizards outnumber both classes about 3 to 1. But the rule is not only about reducing the amount of wizards. It is also for a sense of continuity with previous editions. So far, in the minds of my players (and quite a few others in my area), nothing beats the versatility wizards enjoy.

This brought me to think that for the warlock:
Not enough spells to cast. Spamming EB is fun at first but it gets boring fast. Doing the Hexblade is fun, but most prefer to either play an EK (for a magical martial character) or simply go for a full fledge martial character with no pact and with feats. For my players, it seems that the warlock is a caster that does not know what he really wants to do. The versatility of the warlock depends a lot on what he is willing to sacrifice to get it. Don't get me wrong, the warlock is strong. But mechanically something simply does not add up. Maybe a few more spells or a bit more pact features... I simply do not know. Most of the players that play a warlock (from their own admit) are doing it for a change of flavor and only if there is a wizard in the group...

For the sorcerers:
Sorcerers were great in 3.5 because they did not prepare spells. Their strength was that they were able to cast a spell when they needed it. Now, it is a class feature of all characters that are spell casters... which leave the sorcerer with their metamagics options as their defining edge (which was a wizard thing before). Sorcery points are a bit lacking at low level so when you start a sorcerer, the lack of sorcery points makes the edge sorcery points are giving you somewhat of a dulled sword. As for the sorcerer, when there is one, it is just like the warlock. There already was a wizard in the group...

Most of the time, when I have one of these classes, I hear: "If I had been a wizard, this ritual would've helped us a lot." Or "I wish I had chosen XY spells, they would have helped more." Sorcerer and Warlock concentrate a lot on offensive and defensive spells but not on utility spells. This is both their strength and their down fall. Maybe an increase in the amount of spell known would help them...
 



And none of these sinks can bring money like the spells do. Because, wizards players do sell their spells and it does bring them money too.
This is not a one way thing.
So Cleric, Druid and Bard spells are worth less to cast for people? I am pretty sure that a 2nd level Lesser Restoration would net you about 50 gold per casting, that is an awful lot of money you can make in... five minutes?

Or are you referring to the price of selling a spellbook? Which yes, is expensive. It also took a lot of time and money to make, and you mentioned running risks of evil wizards coming for you spells.
 

Spell casting can bring in money too. Clerics druids and bards are notoriously good at that. But if someone wants a spell to be cast, we automatically refer to what the PHB and DMG say.

I was really referencing the selling of the right to copy a spell from your spell book. It goes from common occurence in a big city to extremely rare in rural area. But it does happen. Prices vary from spell to spell and from area to area.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
This brought me to think that for the warlock:
Not enough spells to cast. Spamming EB is fun at first but it gets boring fast. Doing the Hexblade is fun, but most prefer to either play an EK (for a magical martial character) or simply go for a full fledge martial character with no pact and with feats. For my players, it seems that the warlock is a caster that does not know what he really wants to do. The versatility of the warlock depends a lot on what he is willing to sacrifice to get it. Don't get me wrong, the warlock is strong. But mechanically something simply does not add up. Maybe a few more spells or a bit more pact features... I simply do not know. Most of the players that play a warlock (from their own admit) are doing it for a change of flavor and only if there is a wizard in the group...
To address this, one thing you might want to consider is having the spells in the warlock's Expanded Spell list be known spells automatically. This does give them another 10 known spells, but since they are "pre-selected" we haven't found this to be an issue. It adds a bit more versatility to warlocks, but nothing crazy IME.
 

To address this, one thing you might want to consider is having the spells in the warlock's Expanded Spell list be known spells automatically. This does give them another 10 known spells, but since they are "pre-selected" we haven't found this to be an issue. It adds a bit more versatility to warlocks, but nothing crazy IME.
We do this too, works really well.

Spell casting can bring in money too. Clerics druids and bards are notoriously good at that. But if someone wants a spell to be cast, we automatically refer to what the PHB and DMG say.

I was really referencing the selling of the right to copy a spell from your spell book. It goes from common occurence in a big city to extremely rare in rural area. But it does happen. Prices vary from spell to spell and from area to area.
Right, and the PHB says that a first or second level spell can cost up to 50 gp. 3rd level cleric has two 2nd level slots, so that could be 100 gp a day right there. And since it is something as simple as "cure disease" that is fairly easy to do anywhere.

They can also make and sell scrolls as well, according to the DMG for even more money. Potentially meeting the wizard spellbook costs.

But, their upkeep maxes (without accounting for magical gear) at less than 175 gp per level, while a wizard starts with 50 to 100 gp and maxes at around 900 gp per level.
 

To address this, one thing you might want to consider is having the spells in the warlock's Expanded Spell list be known spells automatically. This does give them another 10 known spells, but since they are "pre-selected" we haven't found this to be an issue. It adds a bit more versatility to warlocks, but nothing crazy IME.
Already done. We started this way. When we understood that it was just an added choice, we went for keeping things as they were.

The sorcerer is still in the murk on this side.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Already done. We started this way. When we understood that it was just an added choice, we went for keeping things as they were.

The sorcerer is still in the murk on this side.
Ok. Another option is to allow all caster classes bonus cantrips equal to their spellcasting ability score modifier. So, a Wizard with INT 16 gains 3 more cantrips. It still makes the selection "tough" but allows for more options for all the caster classes.
 

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
For the sorcerers:
Sorcerers were great in 3.5 because they did not prepare spells. Their strength was that they were able to cast a spell when they needed it. Now, it is a class feature of all characters that are spell casters... which leave the sorcerer with their metamagics options as their defining edge (which was a wizard thing before).
I'm pretty sure wizards still have to prepare spells whereas the sorcerer has access to all theirs. Wizards don't have to guess amounts of memorizations anymore but still don't have access to their entire arsenal without resting to swap out a choice.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I'm pretty sure wizards still have to prepare spells whereas the sorcerer has access to all theirs. Wizards don't have to guess amounts of memorizations anymore but still don't have access to their entire arsenal without resting to swap out a choice.
There's no point to it. A wizard can prepare more spells than a sorcerer of the same, or even higher level, knows.

@Helldritch, if you want more sorcerers, maybe you should buff them a little -like allowing them to not use material components and adding to either their spells known or sorcery points-, and to make warlocks more common, make long rests harder to achieve?
 

I'm pretty sure wizards still have to prepare spells whereas the sorcerer has access to all theirs. Wizards don't have to guess amounts of memorizations anymore but still don't have access to their entire arsenal without resting to swap out a choice.
No, but they do have the rituals and this is hard to beat. As long as the wizard has a ritual in his spell book, he does not need to prepare it whereas any other caster must have the spell prepared to cast the ritual. Of course taking the feat can change that... but it is one less feat.

@Helldritch, if you want more sorcerers, maybe you should buff them a little -like allowing them to not use material components and adding to either their spells known or sorcery points-, and to make warlocks more common, make long rests harder to achieve?
1st part, not sure it would be such a good thing. For the underlined part. Already done since the start of 5ed. 2 short rests before a long rest. Otherwise, random encounter that gives no exp until the 6-8 encounters are met. No paladin nova, no ever raging barbs and no 5mwd in my games. I am trying to find a good balance. It is not that the classes do not perform well, far from it. But the wizard's versatility beats the crap out of the warlock and sorcerer.
 

I'm pretty sure wizards still have to prepare spells whereas the sorcerer has access to all theirs. Wizards don't have to guess amounts of memorizations anymore but still don't have access to their entire arsenal without resting to swap out a choice.
This could be a feature if the number of spells a sorcerer knows were greater than then number a wizard had prepared daily. Unfortunately, it is the opposite--the wizard has more prepared daily than the sorcerer knows. This means there is no benefit to the sorcerer from that whatsoever. And that isn't even counting rituals.
 

FrozenNorth

Adventurer
Yeah, as a houserule it's ...a houserule, and it apparently doesn't deter your players from playing wizards (though if it's been as clear "from the beginning of 5E" as you say, I wonder why you have a player complaining about it now ...) but I don't think you can legitimately claim it's a clear reading of
I find “from the beginning of 5e” to be a weird formulation, kind of like when 5e came out 6 years ago, you called up all the players and informed them of the house rule...

I mean, if the player wasn’t playing a wizard at the beginning of the campaign, maybe he wasn’t paying attention to the wizard-specific houserules brought up at that point. It would explain why he felt blindsided by this houserule...
 


Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top