D&D 5E My Simple Spell Rarity House Rule

[R_J_K75]

This is a hill I will gladly die on to disagree.

Its clearly a matter of preference and opinion, so I wouldn't argue one perspective is better than the other, its just what is best for any particular group of players.

Upcasting didn't even exist back then, and my character had the power level of a 2nd level character for months and months.
That's completely freaking ridiculous.

But from making this a playable game perspective it is absolutely required to be in the base rules because different DMs will have different ideas (just like my DM did back then) and it really makes the game unfun.

Yeah, not a game I would enjoy, but this just sounds like the DM was inexperienced or had the perception that a harder more restrictive game was better. IDK just a guess. But I agree that if the spell acquisition rules of the wizard are changed, they should be clearly defined whether they are official or optional.

 

[R_J_K75]

Maybe @R_J_K75 meant choosing any spells at all, but I can't speak for them.

Like I said above I don't house rule anymore, so we let players choose their spells per the rules in the PHB. I'm not opposed to letting players choose some spells, but I would prefer some limitations within reason so that it strikes a balance between players being able to make choices and the DM retaining some control of what's in their game. Obviously, this is something I could do if I chose to. Ever since 3E when so many rules were established, I found it hard to convince players on rules changes when they could open the PHB and recite back specific rules to defend their stance. I just found it wasn't worth the argument after a point.

 

[MichaelSomething]

sounds like the DM had the perception that a harder more restrictive game was better.

That's not rare around these parts...

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a hill I will gladly die on to disagree.

Back in AD&D I played a Magic User in a six month campaign where we got up to 5th level. During that time, I never found any 2nd level scrolls or spellbooks. DM assured me they were around, we just never made the right choices to come upon them. Upcasting didn't even exist back then, and my character had the power level of a 2nd level character for months and months.

That's completely freaking ridiculous.

This is one of the small but required changes thaty should never be rolled back. Wizards are competent, Intelligent people focused on the Arcane, they can work out two formulas every few months from their readings, experimentations, seeing people cast, and the like so it doesn't even have versimlitude going for it. But from making this a playable game perspective it is absolutely required to be in the base rules because different DMs will have different ideas (just like my DM did back then) and it really makes the game unfun.

If you want to make it a house rule and your players trust you to give them out, that's fine. I'd even play with you. Limit spell selection like the OP suggested but still have free spells per level? Easy. But when working across the gamut of all DMs regardless of experience and of the adventures they are running this absolutely needs to be a rule in the books.

Summation: Because not all DMs run the same, to preserve tthe wizard being viable from a game perspective, Wizards are required to increase spells known outside what they find. All of the other classes can.

That’s always the challenge of reward distribution, whether it’s spells, magic items, rare spell components, or even just cash and fungible treasures. In theory leaving it in the DM’s hands creates a strong incentive to go on adventures to seek out those rewards, and allows the DM to regulate access to powerful items and abilities and craft the experience more precisely. But unfortunately that also leaves the door open for misalignment between the players’ desired play experience and the one the DM provides.

 

[Blue]

To be clear, I didn't say wizards don't get to choose their spells, just that named spells can't be among those chosen. That leaves the vast majority of core spells (and spells from supplemental books as well if those are accessible to the table). So, I really don't see your vehement objection applying.

Maybe @R_J_K75 meant choosing any spells at all, but I can't speak for them.

That said, you definitely should not play with rules you don't like.

Yeah, I was fine with what you were suggesting. He was saying Wizards shouldn't get choice of spells at level, only what they find in game.

 

[Blue]

Its clearly a matter of preference and opinion, so I wouldn't argue one perspective is better than the other, its just what is best for any particular group of players.

No, it's neither preference nor opinion. (Told you I was ready to die on this hill.) If ina game, one rule can occasionally have disastrous results in terms of fun, and the alternate rule can occasionally give tables a small bonus or detriment to fun, then there is a definitive winner.

You even called the DM not giving out spells as "worst" and "extreme". If the DM needs to give them out or that's the experience, why are we making it a hidden mandate to the DM and not just enshrining it in the rules. Like we are.

And then tables that prefer other ways can put money under free parking - i.e. house rule to add to their enjoyment.

But you shouldn't publish with a rule in place that can really mess up the game, especially when there are clear alternatives.

Yeah, not a game I would enjoy, but this just sounds like the DM was inexperienced or had the perception that a harder more restrictive game was better. IDK just a guess. But I agree that if the spell acquisition rules of the wizard are changed, they should be clearly defined whether they are official or optional.

The DM had put things in to find, but the ways that we players went we never came across them. Things like an NPC foe who got away (with his spell books), a merchant we didn't interact with, hidden scrolls we never found.

If the DM should have adjusted and forced, then again why not just put it in the rules.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Awesome idea, @el-remmen - I hope to incorporate this into my next campaign

 

[bloodtide]

I've done this for years and years. Though also adding in spell complexity.

Unique: any new created spell that is only know to it's creator. Only they know the spell.
Very Rare: any spell shared with a small number of people. Only they know the spell.
Rare: The named spells, and some others. Must be found. For sale but expensive and rare.
Uncommon: about half of them can be bought easy, the other half are harder to find.
Common:everyone knows these spells and they can be found anywhere spellcasters are

Simple spells: have a direct straightforward effect. Often a 'fire and forget' effect that requires very little mental effort other then pointing.
Complex spells: have a lasting effect that needs mental control for it's effect. Often complex math is involved.
Exotic: have an effect involving space, time and other such exotic topics.

So the spell fireball is common and simple. Firestorm is uncommon and complex. Arvast's Temporal Fold is rare and exotic.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This is a hill I will gladly die on to disagree.

Back in AD&D I played a Magic User in a six month campaign where we got up to 5th level. During that time, I never found any 2nd level scrolls or spellbooks. DM assured me they were around, we just never made the right choices to come upon them. Upcasting didn't even exist back then, and my character had the power level of a 2nd level character for months and months.

That's completely freaking ridiculous.

This is one of the small but required changes thaty should never be rolled back. Wizards are competent, Intelligent people focused on the Arcane, they can work out two formulas every few months from their readings, experimentations, seeing people cast, and the like so it doesn't even have versimlitude going for it. But from making this a playable game perspective it is absolutely required to be in the base rules because different DMs will have different ideas (just like my DM did back then) and it really makes the game unfun.

If you want to make it a house rule and your players trust you to give them out, that's fine. I'd even play with you. Limit spell selection like the OP suggested but still have free spells per level? Easy. But when working across the gamut of all DMs regardless of experience and of the adventures they are running this absolutely needs to be a rule in the books.

Summation: Because not all DMs run the same, to preserve tthe wizard being viable from a game perspective, Wizards are required to increase spells known outside what they find. All of the other classes can.

Things like this still happen. A GM ran us through Out of the Abyss fairly close to how it was written in the book. I was playing a GOO warlock who took the book path that allowed me to learn any ritual.

Never found 1 outside of the spells I selected at level up.

 

[R_J_K75]

If ina game, one rule can occasionally have disastrous results in terms of fun, and the alternate rule can occasionally give tables a small bonus or detriment to fun, then there is a definitive winner.

Bad rules are just bad rules I agree. I also understand that some rules are abstract (i.e., hp and AC), while others are there just to add fun to the game or perform a very specific task as is the case with wizards being allowed to auto select/swap spells at level up. Speaking strictly for myself, and I'm sure I'm in the minority, but it's hard for me to justify the narrative of the campaign and a wizard just getting spells out of thin air if I don't build in downtime between levels for spell research. The PHB differentiates warlocks and sorcerers from wizards as the former are innate spell casters, patrons of a higher power and the latter are more tactile and learned. Wizards need to study long hours to learn spells, spend time maintaining a spellbook(s)/scrolls, acquiring spell components and finally taking time to commit spells to memory for casting. Thats where wizards freely getting spells between levels falls short for me, especially when I let players level in the middle of an adventures where there is no down time, which I sometimes do. I currently run spellcasters in 5E RAW for speed and simplicity, but I'll admit that as a DM I sometimes fall back on a pre-3E mindset as to how the game should play, which I recognize and make a conscious effort not to.

The DM had put things in to find, but the ways that we players went we never came across them. Things like an NPC foe who got away (with his spell books), a merchant we didn't interact with, hidden scrolls we never found.

If the DM should have adjusted and forced, then again why not just put it in the rules.

This was a pretty typical thing for DMs to do in years past from what I recall. I know I have been guilty of it from time to time. I think its a matter of the DM knowing when to relent and adjust on the fly when it comes to awarding treasure that is crucial to the game or a specific PC. I write my own adventures and probably 75% of the time I roll or choose treasure randomly, if the players find these great, if not tough luck. The other 25% of the time I place specific items for specific players and make sure they find them. I'm not sure there needs to be hard and fast rules on how a DM should place and distribute treasure because theres so many styles of play, but some suggestions might help.