D&D 5E My Simple Spell Rarity House Rule

[cbwjm]

The wizard player could always ask to hunt down some spells if they weren't finding any in the game. Seek out a tomb of a long deceased wizard, ask to find a tutor, there are ways to find those spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course, this mean the DM has to be fair-minded in littering adventures with scrolls or spell books with some of these spells.

This would seem to be the major stumbling block, then.

 

[MNblockhead]

I've done this in my games as well. I've also had rules where spells over a certain level could not just be bought. But I feels, especially at higher levels, like I'm just putting extra restrictions on one class.

One campaign I've wanted to run is a campaign world where arcane magic is banned and for the most part lost. The known world is basically ruled by theocracies. The party would be part of a hidden group trying to rediscover lost arcane magic. Most of the adventures would be tied to seeking spell components, magic items, and spell scrolls/books.

Two things are keeping me from running it. The first is just time. I really don't have the time for prepping a homebrew campaign in the way I would like. But the second is that I don't think my current group of players would be up for it and I certainly don't have the time to run two campaigns.

The problems with this campaign idea, I think, for many players include:

• Not wanting to track and rely on spell components.
• Players playing wizards not wanting to be limited to what spells they can select when leveling up
• Non-wizard players not wanting to be seen as second-fiddles and support characters for the wizards

I think that the third point is easily addressed with good plot lines and back stories and ensuring that there are rewards for all involved. The first two require a specific kind of player who would enjoy the story ramifications of those limitations.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

Cool, but the point for me is to keep it simple.

 

[Blue]

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.

Agreed, that's a great example in published hardcover adventures, from the people who should know it. From a game perspective if spells are needed, it should be protected in the rules so that DMs don't have a hidden agenda they must fulfill otherwise they are providing a bad experience.

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.

Sure - and you can house rule that at your table. But that doesn't change that the rule protects the experience of all players. As we see from Sabathius42's example, even published adventures can have issues like this.

Basically it comes down to:
1. A rule that is put in place that protects the "game" part of RPG, where individual DMs who don't provide it and will provide another way can intentionally change.
2. A preference ("No researching existing spells without downtime") that suits some DMs and not others, leaving a hole in the rules that can and does provide a poor experience and a trap class unless the DM intentionally makes sure this need is filled.

From that, #1 is really the only choice for the rules. Either way you can have what you want, but #1 protects games across the spectrum. Do you see how this really isn't arguable that the rules should have it the other way?

 

[el-remmen]

Do you see how this really isn't arguable that the rules should have it the other way?

Everything is arguable. Someone who has been on ENWorld for 18 years should know that by now.


Regardless, if it must continue, I prefer this argument - which is broader than the specific suggestion here - be taken to a different thread.

 

[jgsugden]

Interesting idea, but the spells that have a name are a fairly random list - and some of them are very evocative and fun. If you go this route, do keep in mind that denial of player desires has a negative impact. When you tell them no, it has a cost.

In my setting there is a book called (boringly) Librum Magicum. It is a well known text and is available in almost any place that deals in books. It contains descriptions of every spell in the PHB, every monster in the Monster Manual, and every Magic Item in the DMG. It doesn't include mechanics, but each thing gets an entire page. In the case of spells there is enough information that PCs can 'learn' the spell (via class mechanics) for sorcerers, bards, etc... Wizards still need a scroll or spellbook to copy in order to learn it.

Spells from secondary sources (other WotC books, 3rd party sources) are 'known of' from legends and stories. The same goes for monsters. There isn't detailed information available, and you have to ask the DM for them.

In terms of the 'unknown' monsters, magic items, or spells - I use homebrew materials. I have thousands of spells, magic items and monsters that I've collected over the 4 decades I've played. These represent about 30% to 50% of the things the PCs encounter. I have a few monsters, such as my Axemorph Demons (based upon the figures from the Dreamblade game WotC made), that make a lot of appearances. I have a few that appear at least once a campaign as inside jokes (Bunny Fish - which appear to be 'half bunny, half fish' meranimals - but are actually the 'missiles' sent off a near stationary bottom dwelling sea monster that essentially blows up large sea creatures and ships and then slowly eats their carcasses). The spells I have come from older editions, from original creations, and from other games in which I played. I usually have to tweak them to update for 5E, but surprisnly not too much.

 

[el-remmen]

Interesting idea, but the spells that have a name are a fairly random list

Thus why a DM can tweak the list by adding/removing names to spells if they feel like it. What I like about my idea is that there is - as the first post suggested - is that there are a variety of ways to implement it or a version of it.

 

[R_J_K75]

Do you see how this really isn't arguable that the rules should have it the other way?

Everything is arguable. Someone who has been on ENWorld for 18 years should know that by now.


Regardless, if it must continue, I prefer this argument - which is broader than the specific suggestion here - be taken to a different thread.

@Blue I understand what youre saying and I don't have anything else to add to the conversation. So in all due respect and in the interest of not being redundant I'm going to bow out now so the thread doesn't derail as I think we've gotten away from the OP.

 

[jgsugden]

Thus why a DM can tweak the list by adding/removing names to spells if they feel like it. What I like about my idea is that there is - as the first post suggested - is that there are a variety of ways to implement it or a version of it.

Right - just remember the other half of my point: Telling a player no has a cost. Even when you're strategic to meet your objectives, you're still restricting the player from the options the book suggests are available to them. You can totally do it - but it has a cost. If, for example, I was told that I couldn't have access to the Bigby's Hand spell, I would be disappointed. I'd talk with the DM to see what could be done to gain access as it is a very fun spell to use and high enough level that you do not get a huge span of time as a player to use it.

I also see a disjoinder in how this works for a Sorcerer. They gain a spell when they gain a level. If they want to learn a spell that is on your restricted list, they have to wait to find it. Then it would seem they have to retrain to learn it. Beyond the issues related to the delay in access, that implies that there is a knowledge base for how their spells work as opposed to having it be something they naturally learn to do. It shifts the feel of the class more towards the duplicate of a wizard and further away from being innate casters of primal magics.