D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Imaculata]

To the OP, if this discussion has made you regret your ruling, then know this:

Speaking both for myself and other DM's that I play with, sometimes we regret how we ruled on something and go back on it. We try to be consistent on the rules as much as possible, but a bad rule can get in the way of fun. So whatever agreements were made at the start of the campaign, we can always change our mind. Nothing stops you from having an honest talk with your players why you feel your ruling may have been in error. In the end the goal should be for everyone to have fun. You are not a monster for making a bad call, we all do on occasion. And I know your players will respect you for changing it, and explaining your reasoning.

 

[clearstream]

To the OP, if this discussion has made you regret your ruling, then know this:

Speaking both for myself and other DM's that I play with, sometimes we regret how we ruled on something and go back on it. We try to be consistent on the rules as much as possible, but a bad rule can get in the way of fun. So whatever agreements were made at the start of the campaign, we can always change our mind. Nothing stops you from having an honest talk with your players why you feel your ruling may have been in error. In the end the goal should be for everyone to have fun. You are not a monster for making a bad call, we all do on occasion. And I know your players will respect you for changing it, and explaining your reasoning.

That's true. And for me it doesn't even apply just to bad calls. I regularly go through my list of current house rules and cull those that don't make enough difference on terms I value. Even perfectly good rules, that work fine: unless they really matter, they're not worth the cost of variance from canon.

That would be my core critique of applying this cost to wizards. Let's say I agree that they are overpowered (and TBH straight classes in wizard is still the bar for power in 5e) I still probably wouldn't apply the OP's rule. Not because I hate it, or feel it is a bad rule, but because it isn't strong enough. It doesn't do the work I would want it to do in the most effective way. And I speak as a DM who tried adding costs to the free spell picks wizards got in 3.5. It makes a small difference, but does not significantly ameliorate the more fundamental concerns with the class.

 

[Imaculata]

That's true. And for me it doesn't even apply just to bad calls. I regularly go through my list of current house rules and cull those that don't make enough difference on terms I value. Even perfectly good rules, that work fine: unless they really matter, they're not worth the cost of variance from canon.

I have had similar experiences with my own houserules. Sometimes they are a work in process, and need further refinement. I try to be transparent to my players, explaining the how and why of my houserule, and what my ultimate goal is.

When I came up with a way of doing mass naval combat in my 3e pirate campaign, I explained to my players how it was my goal to speed up the combat between hundreds of combatants onboard a few dozen ships, without making their characters or their ship upgrades irrelevant. I asked my players afterwards for critique, and they gave me plenty of feedback, which I'll use to further refine these rules the next time a big battle comes up.

Houserules can be a work of progress. But you should always listen to your players, and you should always ask yourself what the houserule is supposed to achieve that cannot be done with the core rules. In the case of my mass combat rules, houserules were absolutely needed and it got the job done. But there was also definitely room for improvement.

 

[Coroc]

I'm sorry, but the math on this doesn't work at all.

Assuming you can't buy magical gear, let us take a rogue, a cleric and a fighter.

They all start with the best weapons they can buy, shields, and armor. Assuming the fighter and cleric both buy Splint, then Full Plate and the rogue buys Studded Leather, they spend 3,445 gp. Arrows or javelins might add up to another 100 or so. But that doesn't matter.

The Wizard, just from the two level up spells per level, and never finding any spells they want to copy, is spending 10,700 gp over the course of the campaign. In practice, probably a little less, if they never take a spell outside their school they can cut this in half, but even then it is more than the entire rest of the party combined.

So, unless you are selling a few thousand gold worth of magical items to everyone else and not the wizard, then the wizard is paying more, and since magical items are something the wizard would want as well...

Nah, nah, no please don't. I wrote a WORKING ECONOMY. D&D 5e (and every other edition) had NONE as per RAW.

First it would be 200 Silver in my case for the starting.
I did a working economy for my greyhawk campaign (and every other) but I go nothing like RAW.

I try to give you some examples from my in game pricelist on how to eventually do that:
I my games it is 1g is 20s is 240c to reflect some reality.
So in my campaign a stiletto is 10s a two handed sword is 100s.
A buffed armor (AC12) is 20s a breastplate is 100s a full plate is 800s and needs to be bodyfitted
A mage scroll is (Spell-level)^2 x 100s, so 100s for a level 1 scroll and 8100s for a level 9 scroll.
Those scrolls can be used for oneshot or copying into spellbook, I do not bother about ink and stuff it is minor expense.

You see now the fighter comes with 200s, so e.g. he can buy a two handed sword and a breastplate, and the wizard gets 2 level 1 scrolls for that dosh.

Of course you got to steer the treasure from the beginning, normally every humanoid drops a few silver e.g 1d6 for an orc.

I hope that clarifies it a bit what I mean

 

[Lanefan]

That's true. And for me it doesn't even apply just to bad calls. I regularly go through my list of current house rules and cull those that don't make enough difference on terms I value. Even perfectly good rules, that work fine: unless they really matter, they're not worth the cost of variance from canon.

What does "cost of variance from canon" mean?

If you've a perfectly good houserule that works fine then keep it; and over time at your table it becomes the canon. Eventually, you won't need the PH any more, as your houserule binder (or online pages) has become your game's PH.

That would be my core critique of applying this cost to wizards. Let's say I agree that they are overpowered (and TBH straight classes in wizard is still the bar for power in 5e) I still probably wouldn't apply the OP's rule. Not because I hate it, or feel it is a bad rule, but because it isn't strong enough. It doesn't do the work I would want it to do in the most effective way. And I speak as a DM who tried adding costs to the free spell picks wizards got in 3.5. It makes a small difference, but does not significantly ameliorate the more fundamental concerns with the class.

Another option that has a chance of reducing the wizards' power a bit without automatically affecting their finances: make the spell (singular!) learned at level-up be rolled randomly from all wizard spells of the highest level the wizard can cast. No choice - you get what you get and that's that.

Want a specific spell that's not the one you got for free? Go out and find it, or trade for it, or buy it. And yes, buying it does affect finances but at least that effect comes by player/PC choice rather than as a built-in fact of levelling up.

 

[clearstream]

What does "cost of variance from canon" mean?

It means that there are the official rules that players typically invest some amount of time in understanding. And then there are my house rules. Each time a house rule varies an official rule, there is a small cognitive burden for remembering that fact. Say I vary the cost of spells gained from levelling up, I not only have to learn and remember the house rule, but when I am playing wizard and read what to do when I level up I have to remember to disapply or vary the published rule.

These are observable costs that you see and experience when there is a widely possessed published source - the PHB - and a narrowly possessed set of changes. It's not black and white, for instance it can be "cheaper" cognitively to add a new feat, than to vary a published feat. An easy experiment to do to confirm this observation is compare player knowledge of the published general game rules plus specific game rules for their race, background, class and feats, with their knowledge of the published Sage Advice and Errata for those same rules.

While Sage Advice and Errata are intended to improve the game, at the table it's often more in a group's interests to just go with the PHB version, that every player at the table (typically) has ready access to.

If you've a perfectly good houserule that works fine then keep it; and over time at your table it becomes the canon. Eventually, you won't need the PH any more, as your houserule binder (or online pages) has become your game's PH.

I strongly favour sticking with house rules for a decent period - it's the only way to play test them robustly and tweak, clarify, balance or streamline them. What I am saying - concretely - is that there is a cost on each house rule introduced, and the value of that rule in play needs to justify that cost. I don't think you are denying that point, right? If one does have a constant player group, together for a long time, with unvaried house rules... then for sure that cost declines.

What's crucial in my mind, for game rules, is that they justify their presence. Their effect on play must be worth the cost of bothering to learn, remember, and apply them. Additionally, I know from (professional) experience that one drafts far more rules than one goes on with. Some rules should end up on the cutting room floor. Not all are equal in quality.

 

[Helldritch]

I think some people here are confusing paying for additional spells and paying for copying.
Bob the wizard is now third level. He has the chance to be in town.
He leveled in the field so now he wants to copy his new spells into his spellbook.
2 first level must be copied. It cost him 100 gold to get them down.
2 second level must be copied. Both are of his school so again 100 gold to get them down.

He wants to add a third spell second level spell. He goes to the local wizard that thought him magic and wants to add the blur spell to his spell book. Being a former apprentice, the wizard charge him 100 gold for the right of copying the spell. It costs an other 100 gold in inks.

And it goes both ways.
Gen the mighty NPC knows that Bob has the spell fire ball in his arsenal. When Bob gets in town after his adventure, Gen goes to Bob and asks him for the right of copying the spell fire ball. Gen the Mighty NPC pays 750 golds to Bob to have the right of copying the spell onto his spell book. When Kardok comes to Bob for the right of copying the spell, Bob isn't really happy to see Kardok but that fellow did let him copy a spell from his spell book. Kardok is a bit low on money but he has the ink for the Fire ball spell. He wants a little discount. He offers 500 gold and the spell Snilloc snowball swarm and the inks to copy it. Bob knows that he's losing about 50 gold but the rights to copy a spell from Kardok is a good opportunity...

Meanwhile, Tarkud the Fighter, pays for the repairs to his armor, shield and weapons (about 10% of their value). He buys new magical arrows and goes to the alchemist and apothecary to buy potions. He knows that Bob will make a few potions of fire resistance but he does not expect that Bob will have time to make a lot of them. Maybe two or three. So better check with the local alchemist. Healing potions are costly too but hey... At least they turned up a good profit on this adventure. The same goes with Albrecht the priest, and all the other characters. Everyone pays for something.

 

[Bolares]

I think some people here are confusing paying for additional spells and paying for copying.
Bob the wizard is now third level. He has the chance to be in town.
He leveled in the field so now he wants to copy his new spells into his spellbook.
2 first level must be copied. It cost him 100 gold to get them down.
2 second level must be copied. Both are of his school so again 100 gold to get them down.

Wait, why is he copying 4 spells?

 

[Maxperson]

I think the rules probably entail that - somehow - the spells should be in the book, free. I envision them as a consequence of ongoing research, not something that happens spontaneously on dinging.

That's how I see it, too. Ongoing research, though, shouldn't get rid of the ink requirement for writing spells down. If all it takes a bit of time and study to get rid of the need for expensive inks, then that should also apply to spells found or purchased. RAW is glaringly inconsistent here.

 

[Bolares]

That's how I see it, too. Ongoing research, though, shouldn't get rid of the ink requirement for writing spells down. If all it takes a bit of time and study to get rid of the need for expensive inks, then that should also apply to spells found or purchased. RAW is glaringly inconsistent here.

It's either inconsistent or it's handwaved to avoid making a player have to pay for leveling up and getting their class powers...