D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Maxperson]

The DM is definitely not always right, and in this case, I think OP should have informed the player of this rule before the game began.

The OP has made the game more restrictive than it's intended to be, for one character, in a way that taps into a second increase in restriction, making it...very undesirable to play a wizard, after the player has already started playing a wizard.

The OP did inform the player in advance. And it's a reasonable house rule. You don't have to find or buy the spell, but you still need the special inks to pen it into the book. It makes the game consistent and consistency is good. This player made the Wizard knowing that this is the case and apparently didn't prepare. That's on the player.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

First, you need an explanation for why you even need expensive ink to copy a spell into a spellbook. Then you can make sense of things from there.

The way I handle it is to treat spellbooks as basically "spell preparation foci", in that same category of quasi-magical tools as spellcasting foci. Because of that, you can't just write text into the book and have it work. It has to be written with special ink, because when you prepare spells from your spellbook you are peforming an at least quasi-magical mental configuration act, and being able to channel the magical symbols through looking at that special ink is part of the ritual of spell preparation.

So with that explanation, how can you write spells into the book without special focus ink every now and again (when leveling) and have it work? Because it is a spell you have been working on developing since you last leveled up. Every day you are writing bits and pieces of it in there, puzzling over it, testing out bits of it, and effectively infusing it with your own aura/resonance/energy. Instead of spending a couple of hours and using some magic ink to do a quick write, you are investing your extended time and energy into making that spell part of your spell preparation focus. it. It doesn't matter what sort of ink you use in that situation.

Trapped out in the desert? I'd grab a pointy stick and write it in my own blood.

I understand and share the desire not to handwave the spells appearing in the book without the proper ink, but I think there are creative ways to justify it that don't remove class abilities from characters.

As far as putting that in to make wizards less appealing because you'd like to see less of them played... Have you asked your players why they play wizards instead of warlocks and sorcerers? Maybe you'll find out that they really just like wizards, or don't like the others from a conceptual framework. If that's the case punishing them for playing wizards may not be a deterrent until it reaches the rage-quit level, so it might not be the best approach. On the other hand, maybe they are cool with the idea of sorcerers and or warlocks, but they really don't like something mechanical about how 5e did them. (I have issues with sorcerer myself.) In that case, maybe providing positive incentive by altering sorcerers/warlocks mechanically would have better results.

 

[Imaculata]

Does it make the game more or less fun when you have to go and buy ink for every spell?

 

[Horwath]

1. Yes, it is too strict. Those spells are free and they appear in the spellbook as "magic".
You are entitled to as DM to modify that rule, but you are making a problem where there is none.

2. If you are feeling that there is too few warlock/sorcerers created, maybe take a look why those 2 classes are bad for your players.

 

[chaochou]

Nothing says heroic fantasy quite like bean-counting for quills and ink.

But if profit and loss accountancy is the name of the game, it sounds perfect.

Just make sure those spells are properly recorded on the balance sheet as well (most spells are considered intangible assets, although ’charm person’ is often recorded as Goodwill), remember they’re not subject to depreciation, and are declared for tax as capital gains, not income.

 

[Sadras]

This reminds me of when we complained about the old LFQW while ignoring all the spell casting/learning limitations in the in-game mechanics of older editions, and now here we are doing the same. Good times!

 

[Todd Roybark]

I would also point out, that 1e training rules for level advancement was also more balanced then 5e, as the martial classes did not automatically know how to use every weapon.

The fighter that found the Vorpal bardiche, typically had to wait until they could learn to use the weapon in 1e...which might actually take a couple level advancements.

So, does team “old school training rules” also house rule limited weapon proficiencies ala 1e?

If there are only Wizards and no other types of spellcasters, whatever the intent of the rule, Helldritch is in effect enforcing a rule that impacts one player, significantly more then the others. The rule seems to have failed to yield the intended result of encouraging the play of other spell caster classes then wizard.

The point is fun. The player is not having fun....and not because they are trying to take advantage of the situation. They just want to use a very general rule, with a fairly widely agreed upon meaning found in the PHB.

I personally love detailed bookkeeping, but even as a DM, I am still only one person out of 7 or 9 people depending on which campaign I am running. Sometimes, it is fine to let rules...be it RAW, Optional, or Homebrew fall by the wayside as the campaign changes and grows.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This isn't "strict", this is just a bad house-rule resulting from an misreading/misunderstanding of the actual rules. Which makes it like about 50-70% of house-rules.

Free means free. It doesn't mean you charge them. It's not even a good house rule, because it just penalizes one class in a totally uneven way. Other classes will simply be vastly wealthier than Wizards (given the scheme suggested), as a result. In earlier editions, this might have made sense, given the vast power differential between Wizards and everyone else, and that Wizards could make $$$ by casting spells for people. In 5E it doesn't make any sense, given all the other casters will be at full capability spending 0gp. It doesn't even make sense if you bring in making $$$ by casting spells, because all the other classes will have similar earning capacities (Bards/Sorcerers might be a bit behind, because they have more fixed spells), and indeed Druids/Clerics may having a higher earning capacity.

 

[Bolares]

And what about the side bar? It does not say:"Except those you had free from leveling."
Like Oofta said. Free of charge, but not of shipping.

D&D is a an exceptions based game. The sidebar is the general rule for adding spells, the spells you add when you level up are an exception, clearly stated when it's said you gain them for free. The exception trumps the general rule here, so by RAW and RAI the spells are free, what you are doing is not a rulling, it's a house rule IMHO. Now, about being strict or not, I agree with the players. the free spells are the natural way in wich the class progresses, so it's really taxing to charge for the spells, even more so if the other classes do not have to pay for levelling up. Putting a tax in character growth can be realistic, but I'd argue D&D is not about realism.

 

[jasper]

5.1 srd page 54 When You find a new spell,....
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it.

So unless the OP told the players upfront about the change, then they are too strict.