D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Umbran]

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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

To clarify this was pure 100% house rule that actively contradicts the rules as written and the rules as intended. Your interpretation is not "strict" - it is a house rule artificially penalising to a specific character class. It was also agreed to by the table - which means that it is fair game.

Three questions:
1: How much loot do you normally give? One of the things about 5e is that there is very little to spend money on most of the time; no domain rules and no magic item market. And no training rule.

2: How much loot are you giving this game. If you normally give Monty Haul amounts of wealth then draining the party coffers a little is just a special effect and isn't a worry. If on the other hand you're giving a normal amount of loot it should have been expected.

3: How long has the game been running? And how long has the player had a problem with this?

My normal approach is that I'd allow the player to respec if they aren't having fun with their character anyway.

 

[Bolares]

I don't understand how it is fair to hte players who are not playing the wizard to vote on a debuff to the wizard class. And againg, to me the player being ok with the rule 6 years ago and feeling bad with it now the he wants to play a wizards shouldn't bind him. Opinions and perspectives change, the player should be allowed to ask for a house rule to be changed, even if he agreed to the rule 6 years ago. You are not obligated to throw way the rule, but if it only affects one player... and that player is not happy with it, why keep it? what good is it bringing?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

You know, reading this, I really have to wonder why you even bothered making this thread. Your three summaries of the positions indicate that you think anyone who has disagreed with you considers you a tryanical monster, which none of us have ever said. So, if you didn't want to hear people telling you that your rule was strict and that we disagree with it, why even bother asking us?

Also, I find the idea of making a rule to try and force people not to play a class distasteful, and by your admission, that is the main point of this rule. Just tell people they can't play wizards in the next campaign and be done with it. Don't beat around the bush by making it harder to play a wizard in the hopes that if you make it unfun and tedious enough they will stop playing wizards and play something else.

 

[Bolares]

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.

Wait... who is calling you a monster? We are criticising the rulling, as you asked, no one is targeting you as a person here

 

[Bolares]

The player is rather on the power gaming side with a lot of rule lawyering mixed in.

Why is this relevant?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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).

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?

 

[Bolares]

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?

yeah... where is the issue with players wanting to play wizards?

 

[NaturalZero]

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.

I'm unclear what exactly the options for voting were. It seems like you're saying that RAW and the training rules are one thing. Was the vote between A. RAW, B. full training rules, and C. status quo with house rules? Did the non-wizard players get a vote to nerf the wizard player's character?

 

[Helldritch]

To NaturalZero
One wizard voted no. The player that said that I was too strict. Two other wizards (one full fledge, the other a fighter3/wizard5) voted to keep things as they are.

Wizards are in no way nerfed as they get their spell anyways. They just have to pay for the inks. Which is a big deal as spells are expansive in my campaigns. Other players are paying a lot of money for potions and alchemy stuff. The wizards in my campaign are hampered in no way save a monetary aspect. And even that is not that much. As I said, if you read above, my question arose because a power gamer called me on that because it is his first time in 6 years that he is doing a wizard... It has more to say:" We want to keep in touch with 1ed where wizard did not have auto spells." and "5ed where spells are easy to come by. (more or less depending on the campaign.)"

yeah... where is the issue with players wanting to play wizards?

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...

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?

1) Wizard are not less fun. The fundamentals are still the same. That is a harsh judgement as you never were at my table.

2) It was voted nearly unanimously (1 no vs 11 yes) and I do not get to vote unless there is a tie. If it were only my preferences, wouldn't they have voted nay? Nope. Even the other wizards prefer it this way. Who are you to say that I am putting my preferences above theirs? Didn't you read the posts where I say that It was voted by the players? I play a very democratic game. I see myself as a referee. We play by the common acknowledge preferences of both group of players. I was simply wondering if I was too strict in applying the rule. According to some, the rule does not go far enough. According to the votes of my players (2 wizards included beside the other one) it was ok.

But thanks again for all that shared their opinions without judging. That is appreciated.