Was I reasonable?

[RatElemental]

I just had to deliver my first "I'm the DM and I said no" line, and I still feel kinda... Not good about it.

For context, this is my first game ever, and I'm the DM (lots and lots of improv going on). One of my players just gained a level, and wanted to buy a bunch of new languages for both him and his familliar.

I objected to this, and he persisted, citing how the rest of his class features progressed normally. I reasoned that most of it was because it was either mundane knowledge he'd have had plenty of opportunities to see others perform, or it was just representing finer control over magic which is an innate part of his being due to both class and race.

I put my foot down, so now he has to wait until next time we're back in town to find a library/tutor and actually learn these languages.

I've also extended it to new spells for wizards, and knowledge skills, since those arcane formulae/factoids about bears have to come from somewhere. Though in the wizard's case he can just spend some time researching as if making an entirely new spell, which may just so happen to actually be an existing one.

Is this a reasonable ruling to have made?

[Pleh]

I say yes, since it looks like you're being consistent in the application.

Would have been better to make this clear before the game began, but no one is perfect. If you're really worried about it, talk to the player and have this conversation with them. If they were hurt, they'll probably tell you and you can grant them some peace offering. If not, they'll tell you not to worry about it.

[ryu]

While this is hardly likely to be something that will cause lasting problems if you speak about it calmly, I would seriously advise learning a basic understanding of the Rules as Written in all sources you use/allow so that you are fully capable of providing players a list of houserules before new games. Why is this important? People who know what you're doing differently than standard can plan around it, and so disputes should become significantly less common if they even occur at all.

[RatElemental]

Yeah it was my fault for not even considering the possibility.

I suppose in this case, if it's RAW that this is how it works, I can allow it in this campaign, and only put the change into effect in future ones. Mostly it was just a heat of the moment "There's no way RAW works that way" reaction.

Should add that this was not during a session that it happened.

[Wraith]

What I'm reading is this:

Him: "I want to learn a new language!"
You: "You need to find someone who can teach it to you."
Him: *high pitched whining only audible to dogs*

Your response seems entirely reasonable to me. Had you refused outright, or justified your response only as "because I said so" it would have been different, but you allowed him to do what he wants provided that sensible - dare I say, logical - caveats were met in the near future.

If he persists in pestering you, asking him what class feature he has that allows him to automatically and inherently learn French by killing a Olog; if he can answer that question to your satisfaction, let him have his language and then post his answer on this forum because it's bound to be fascinating. :smalltongue:

[Malak'ai]

Sometimes as DM's we need to put our foot down in a reasonable way. In this case, depending on the languages he was wanting to learn, I see no problem with saying he has to wait to find a tutor.
If one of them was a language someone else in the party had, I would have allowed him to take that as it can be fluffed as the two of them sitting down around the campfire at night and practicing.

With saying that, if you're feeling as though you might have gone overboard (and a lot of us have when we first start out running games) then talk with the player and explain why you made the decision that you did and them give them options on how to work what he wants into the story at a later date, even going so far as to letting him 'save' the skill points or just giving them to him for free as a story bonus.

[RatElemental]

I actually did say he could learn languages from the party, and that his familliar could learn common from him (it did not already know common). There were just a few that no one in the party knows, such as infernal.

As for the skill points, he'd already put the languages on the sheet, I was just going to count it as not actually there until he learned them. However, I've decided that since this is my first game, going by the book as much as I can is probably a good idea, unless it's an egregious abuse of loopholes or something like that.

[Pleh]

Yeah it was my fault for not even considering the possibility.

I suppose in this case, if it's RAW that this is how it works, I can allow it in this campaign, and only put the change into effect in future ones. Mostly it was just a heat of the moment "There's no way RAW works that way" reaction.

Should add that this was not during a session that it happened.

My understanding of RAW is that gaining a level is all the justification necessary for any changes you want to make to you character (from the eligible options). Basically, the player was right that their assumption seems to be the default interpretation of RAW.

Now, I believe it is also RAW that DMs do possess the prerogative to insist on receiving level advancement only upon finding an instructor or equivalent resource.

Both things being fair and RAW, it's really just your RAW sanctioned version against their assumption of a RAW default version.

Just a small hangup that needs to be more clearly communicated in the future.

[Seto]

As stated before, it's not unreasonable, but a lot of groups do it your player's way: I gained a level, poof, I'm upgrading my character sheet with the relevant skills. It's assumed that sometime in the recent past I've researched them. So it's something that you should make clear in future campaigns, but that's okay, every DM forgets things, especially the first time.
One piece of advice, though: if you wanna play it that way, make sure to allow downtime. Most campaigns I've been in follow PCs day-to-day and have next to zero downtime. Like, you're saying "you can't suddenly learn Gnomish in the middle of a dungeon just by defeating a miniboss", and that makes sense - but if the dungeon goes on for two more levels (or more likely a sequence such as: dungeon/go find a Cleric to raise the Rogue/go do the subquest that Cleric wants us to/get entrapped in a new dungeon), the player will be mad for not getting the skills he should have been getting sessions ago. So if you can arrange for some off-screen downtime between each level or so, your way could work - if not (very intense on-the-run campaigns, one-huge-dungeon-campaigns, etc.), I would recommend against it.

[Mutazoia]

I think you did okay. Personally, I hate the "I just leveled so knowledge that I have had no previous exposure to suddenly appears in my head" attitude. This means new languages, new spells (especially new spells) and other skills/abilities that the character hasn't had any reasonable exposure to up to that point. (No...your mage isn't suddenly and spontaneously going to learn a completely new class, that he's never even encountered before, in the middle of this dungeon.) As some one else said, just be consistent with it.

[RatElemental]

Downtime is a thing that I want to have, yes. We just had a full day of downtime as the party recovered from a near TPK. And I know a major thing he wants to do is craft things, so that will require some downtime between adventures too.

However, I've already reversed my decision, and let him know. We're going to assume he's been studying off screen, and I'm going to be sticking to this until next time I run a campaign. Above all I want to be consistent, but I don't want to just spring things on my players either.

ETA: I am going to be making an effort to spot any further breaks from the rules I'd like to include, and will be bringing them up before the next session. Just so that from this point on anything that isn't going to work how the players expect it to is known about before they try to act as if things will react how they expect. Or, more likely, it will be going on the list of house rules I'll include next time since these characters were originally conceived and created without any such rules in mind.

[Andezzar]

As to whether your decision was reasonable, ask yourself would you do the same thing, if another character learned a different skill that no one in the party possessed?

As others have said before the game assumes downtime between adventures exactly for that kind of thing. Additionally the DM has the choice when to award XP. Rhere is no automatic *ding* level up once the last monster is slain. If it is in the middle of the dungeon, simply do not give XP out yet, but as soon as sufficient XP are accumulated to gain a level, the players can't do anything besides level up their characters (or use the XP for crafting). Once the leveling up process is completed the character should have all benefits of the new level including new languages.

[Darth Ultron]

Is this a reasonable ruling to have made?

Sure, but it is not a good idea.

The idea to make the player STOP and train for every single skill, ability or whatever is just not a good idea for most games. Yes, if you really do what to do a Slow and Gritty game you can do it, but that is a very specific type of game.

It is much, much better to just assume that each character is always training on their own for things...or even more so that they do such training otherwise ''off screen''. So, going up a level is not ''magically'' just now knowing something...it is more the end of that training.

And it is a bit silly that on Monday the character could not speak Abyssal, but on Friday they ''suddenly'' could.....but there is really no good alternative. Any rules system where a character ''knew'' like 5% of something per month of study would be unbelievably clumsy...and you'd have endless trouble deciding what 5% or 25% of something was....Like if a character knew 45% of a language could they hold a conversation? Could they say simple phrases? Could they understand common words? And if so, what phrases or words...it would be a nightmare to keep track.

[weckar]

We just had a full day of downtime as the party recovered from a near TPK.

I hope you realize a 'full' day is not all that much. The general book-advice is to have a 1:2 ratio of adventuring:downtime. So for each week spent adventuring, two weeks of downtime.

[GrayDeath]

I am going to echo: Yes, it was, but if I had been that player I would have, rightfully, pointed out that if you were using that interpretation of the rules, people should know beforehand.

As Darth Ultron pointed out: there are games (and systems) built for a more gradual/realistic approach to learning new stuff (if you like them or not), but D&D is not one of them.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A lot of character building is actually retconning. He knew those languages all along, but it's only now that he's gotten good enough to use them in polite conversation. He practiced those class features all along, but it's taken him this long to reliably perform them under stressful conditions. And so on, and so on.

As such, I wouldn't worry too much about 'instantly' learning a lot of languages. Entice the player to provide a retcon, some backstory element that explains why their character speaks so many languages.

[Andreaz]

I feel you were reasonable enough.


I would not be overly concerned with teachers and training time. But saying "nope, you don't get to learn this new knowledge on the fly just like that" is fine.

[Blu]

I've also extended it to new spells for wizards

Do you mean the spells he gains by level?

[Psyren]

Sure, but it is not a good idea.

The idea to make the player STOP and train for every single skill, ability or whatever is just not a good idea for most games. Yes, if you really do what to do a Slow and Gritty game you can do it, but that is a very specific type of game.

It is much, much better to just assume that each character is always training on their own for things...or even more so that they do such training otherwise ''off screen''. So, going up a level is not ''magically'' just now knowing something...it is more the end of that training.

And it is a bit silly that on Monday the character could not speak Abyssal, but on Friday they ''suddenly'' could.....but there is really no good alternative. Any rules system where a character ''knew'' like 5% of something per month of study would be unbelievably clumsy...and you'd have endless trouble deciding what 5% or 25% of something was....Like if a character knew 45% of a language could they hold a conversation? Could they say simple phrases? Could they understand common words? And if so, what phrases or words...it would be a nightmare to keep track.

+1 to all this.

Conversely however, while I could go with "off-camera training montage" for 1 or at most 2 new languages, I definitely would not allow a character to become a polyglot in a single level, unless it was something I could feasibly see them studying mid-dungeon (e.g. I might let a Truenamer do this, both due to their lower power and because it's much more reasonable for them to be studying language books surrounded by corpses and traps.)

So for me the compromise here would have been "you get 1 language now, and if you make it back to town and find trainers, you can get 2-3 more next level."

[Zanos]

It can be a reasonable thing to do, if you apply it consistently. Does every other character archetype have to spend team with tutors and trainers in order to "cash in" their level up skills, abilities, and features?

If not, I would say you're being unreasonable, and more importantly, unfair.


I've also extended it to new spells for wizards, and knowledge skills, since those arcane formulae/factoids about bears have to come from somewhere. Though in the wizard's case he can just spend some time researching as if making an entirely new spell, which may just so happen to actually be an existing one.
It seems like you're only applying it to things you consider "book learning", which means that wizardy or knowledge characters are going to have to drag people back to town for [INSERT TIME] whenever they level up, or not get anything from it. Knowledge and spells can come from personal study or experience and not just a teacher or book. I'd apply it across the board or not at all.

The general assumption is that the characters are studying these things between level ups. It's just abstracted. New spells don't magically appear, they're what wizards work on every day in their heads and probably in their spell books.

[Psyren]

New spells are definitely something wizards can be learning out in the field - they're experimenting with their magic every day. It's not like they need a language tutor - they already know the language, they're just trying to form new sentences with the words they were taught at level one.

[Mehangel]

I usually avoid forcing PC's to seek 'trainers' to level-up.

Regarding Feats: I don't bother keeping track of what general, combat, or teamwork abilities were used during the adventure, and as such I am not going to limit a character from certain feats merely because adventure X was heavy on intrigue.

Regarding Skills: I don't bother keeping track of what skills the characters actually used during the adventure, and I am not going to force the rogue to purchase and carry along locks just so that when she inevitably levels up, she can put ranks in open lock.

Regarding Multiclassing: I don't agree that only characters must have levels in a class which shares the name with a concept to play that concept. For example: only characters with the ninja class are ninjas, or only characters with the samurai class are samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html). Instead, I utilize a combination of Casting Traditions (from Spheres of Power) and Martial Traditions (from Spheres of Might) to define what a character is.

Regarding Spells: I have a while back thrown out vancian spellcasting from my games and instead utilize Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/). This change encourages players to use thematic casters (without forcing the players to be thematic). If a player wants to branch out and gain a new magic sphere, I let them, because the spellcaster will usually not completely change their playstyle.

[RoboEmperor]

Gaining languages, learning spells, learning feats, etc. are all background activity that the PCs perform during their morning training, travel time, or a way to pass the time when resting or when doing nothing.

A DM who ignores this and says "He must spend a week training to level up" or "Wizards don't get 2 spells per level, they must buy it all from scrolls" are the DMs I will never play with because clearly they did not read the dungeon master's guide and player's handbook and is going to flood the game with a bunch of house rules to make the game "make more sense" to them.

I do not believe it was a reasonable ruling, but as long as you told the player you were implementing these house rules at the start of the game, there is no problem. If he stayed that means he agreed to your house rules. If however you sprung this house rule on him then you are in wrong here.

[Bakkan]

Conversely however, while I could go with "off-camera training montage" for 1 or at most 2 new languages, I definitely would not allow a character to become a polyglot in a single level, unless it was something I could feasibly see them studying mid-dungeon (e.g. I might let a Truenamer do this, both due to their lower power and because it's much more reasonable for them to be studying language books surrounded by corpses and traps.)

So for me the compromise here would have been "you get 1 language now, and if you make it back to town and find trainers, you can get 2-3 more next level."

I disagree with this sentiment; the DM doesn't get to decide what a PC's been studying. If I wish to say "my character has spent the last level deliberately trying to become fluent in as many languages as possible" that's my prerogative, and I represent that by putting skill points into languages.

If a DM doesn't like this, he should write down his houserules regarding level-up restrictions explicitly before play begins and then follow them for the entirety of the campaign. I know that when I sit down to pay D&D 3.5 I don't want to instead be playing "Mother May I?"

[Psyren]

Oh I definitely have no problem documenting houserules up front. But GM's aren't omniscient either, and sometimes something doesn't actually come up (and thereby, not sit right with the DM) until the game has already started. So while springing things on the player isn't cool, sometimes it's unavoidable, and it becomes a question of whether you're playing with friends who are willing to compromise or not, and whether a trivial ruling like being allowed one language in the field is worth flipping the table over.

[Geddy2112]

Seconding most of the posts above-you didn't do anything wrong, and your player was probably not upset about a universe where you don't suddenly learn languages leveling up. The problem was not having this in place from the get go and the player following RAW hit an unknown roadblock, which is a very legitimate beef. I tend to be more permissive, particularly in games with magic because you can always hand wave "it is magic that's how". Neither is wrong, just be sure if you are going against RAW players know. Learning languages is a minor thing though, so no major harm done. Could always be fluffed as if they summoned extraplanar creatures, language magic, whatever the heck.

For those times the unknown unknown problems, it is generally best to say "I am going to allow it this time, but going forward we are doing it this way". You can grandfather in previous things but prevent the headache. Make sure you are clear to your group when you do this, as another player might do the same thing next level.

[Zanos]

Oh I definitely have no problem documenting houserules up front. But GM's aren't omniscient either, and sometimes something doesn't actually come up (and thereby, not sit right with the DM) until the game has already started. So while springing things on the player isn't cool, sometimes it's unavoidable, and it becomes a question of whether you're playing with friends who are willing to compromise or not, and whether a trivial ruling like being allowed one language in the field is worth flipping the table over.
Yeah, there's stuff like "I didn't realize that your character build did 5,000 damage per round", that people should be cool with compromising on, especially if it's negatively impacting the game.

But I don't think a likely supergenius character becoming a polygot unaided is really one of those things. Actually learning a ton of languages unaided is one of those things that a super high intelligence character should be able to do, 'cause it's cool.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm going to agree with the general consensus-- it's not a bad ruling in and of itself, it would have been better to state it up-front, it's an understandable thing to stumble into mid-game, and you should sit down with the player and talk about it out-of-character.

(Wizard level-up spells should absolutely arrive as soon as they can next prepare spells, mind-- those are stated to be the ones they've been developing during unformed downtime, like a Fighter "learning" a new feat. It's a substantial weakening of the class to not get them, and in many (if not most) groups the Wizard is by no means operating at the level they deserve the nerf)

----

If I might make a compromise suggestion? Do your little roleplaying side-quest of doing the research and/or meeting your mentor... but do it retroactively, next time everyone's resting for the night. Set the scene, maybe have an NPC ask a leading question (or ask one of the other players to do so), and then play out a brief flashback. Don't let it take too long or throw in too many wrinkles, because it's a solo bit and the outcome is known, but a short "and that's how I learned Infernal" scene provides flavorful justification for the new abilities without throwing a wrench in current events.

[tiercel]

----

If I might make a compromise suggestion? Do your little roleplaying side-quest of doing the research and/or meeting your mentor... but do it retroactively, next time everyone's resting for the night. Set the scene, maybe have an NPC ask a leading question (or ask one of the other players to do so), and then play out a brief flashback. Don't let it take too long or throw in too many wrinkles, because it's a solo bit and the outcome is known, but a short "and that's how I learned Infernal" scene provides flavorful justification for the new abilities without throwing a wrench in current events.

This seems like a good way of handling things - in general, I like to include *some* kind of RP element to levelups when possible, even when downtime isn’t something that can be easily inserted.

This is also a good reason to informally ask players about PCs’ planned progressions, so you can “just happen” for their characters to, say, run into an NPC of Prestige around level 6, right around when they are planning to take Class of Prestige then. (“Prestige classes” always feel more... prestigious... to me when there is at least an in-game RP nod to some kind of special access, even if it doesn’t go nearly so far as “and then you go away for six months to train in a mountaintop monastery.”)

This also applies to if a player is really gunning for a *particular* magic item that will help their build really work in a particular way — if it’s going to be a signature item, it can be a little more satisfying to wrest it from the cruel grip of Grawknar the Ferocious and turn it into a powerful force for Good (or for Mercenary or whatever ethos) rather than “I finally sold enough vendor trash to save up the gold I needed to get the Amazonians to craft and Prime Teleport that item I was hoping to get!”

[Mordaedil]

A lot of character building is actually retconning. He knew those languages all along, but it's only now that he's gotten good enough to use them in polite conversation. He practiced those class features all along, but it's taken him this long to reliably perform them under stressful conditions. And so on, and so on.

As such, I wouldn't worry too much about 'instantly' learning a lot of languages. Entice the player to provide a retcon, some backstory element that explains why their character speaks so many languages.

It's not reconning, it's assumed you spend downtime to learn the skills and feats you earn at level-up. So they take time.

I'd say it's fine to call that he couldn't have learned these languages where he currently is, but I'd also allow him to set aside the skillpoints so that he could spend downtime to "earn" them once he got to a city he could actually research it in. And until he actually does sit down and spend the time, they are "floating points" he can decide to spend on something else if he wants to, but then he can't spend them on the languages he wanted to research anymore.

But you should impose the same restrictions on all your players for similar reasons! If only so that he does not feel singled out.

[Hal0Badger]

Asking players what their plan is for the next couple of levels is also a good idea and something that I find as a healthy DM habit. At least in that way, you know the general direction that players aiming towards and make adjustments if you see fit earlier on.

[weckar]

Personally I find the most important questions to be who they want to interact with and where they want to be (topographically).

[Andezzar]

Asking players what their plan is for the next couple of levels is also a good idea and something that I find as a healthy DM habit. At least in that way, you know the general direction that players aiming towards and make adjustments if you see fit earlier on.


Personally I find the most important questions to be who they want to interact with and where they want to be (topographically).
Those are both good tips. It also gives you an idea what loot the characters would like/would be appropriate

[Psyren]

Yeah, there's stuff like "I didn't realize that your character build did 5,000 damage per round", that people should be cool with compromising on, especially if it's negatively impacting the game.

But I don't think a likely supergenius character becoming a polygot unaided is really one of those things. Actually learning a ton of languages unaided is one of those things that a super high intelligence character should be able to do, 'cause it's cool.

And I'm actually fine with "super genius learning a ton of languages unaided." I would just want it to take more than one level.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It's not reconning, it's assumed you spend downtime to learn the skills and feats you earn at level-up. So they take time.
Retcon: Retroactive Continuity -- reframing past events to serve a current plot need.

"You know when you were resting after confronting the goblins? Now that you've gained a new level, that time was (as of now, retroactively) spent to learn the corresponding abilities".

Unspecified rest time becomes specified training time. Yeah, it's retconning.

[AlanBruce]

I see no problem with your ruling. Languages can be important, depending on the campaign. You'd be surprised how few actually make campaigns language centric, but there are.

I personally have a house rule regarding languages known at character creation:

If you cast arcane spells (any arcane caster), you get Draconic automatically.

If you cast divine spells and are a cleric/paladin/ any religion associated class, you get a choice between Celestial, Infernal or Abyssal, depending on your allegiance.

If you are a druid or any other nature themed class (like Spirit Shaman), you get Sylvan.

It's not perfect, but it allows several of the more popular languages to be a non issue later on acquiring them and somewhat ties into the PC's build as well.

[The Mystic]

There are a few levels of reason here.

The first level is your motivation for invoking the DM "No." Ask yourself why you did it.


As far as I can tell, your motivation was along the lines of "I am unable to see it making sense in the world I am responsible for maintaining."

Whether this is reasonable or not can depend on the group, as the primary goal is technically "Fun"
not "Accurate simulation" (for most people) but a lot of groups, mine included, find more fun in a self-consistent world.

So your motivation here was probably "I am trying to ensure everybody has fun," which is the most valid of reasons.

The second level is "Could I have achieved the same result in a way that left the recipient of the No feeling better?"


It sounds like the No came at the end of the discussion, rather than the beginning. One of the roles people give the GM is to be the final arbiter, because somebody has to be or things can't progress. So when the GM is taking this role, the most important questions are "Have I examined all options?" and "Will my players see this coming?" A no you knew was coming can be acceptable,
even if you disagree with it, but one you didn't see coming can be jarring, and severely affects your trust in the GMs arbitration abilities.

On your end, have you examined all the options. The one thing that stands out for me here is that you said no because it didn't make sense to you. But clearly it did make sense to your player or they wouldn't have done it. So did you ask the player why it made sense to them? They might actually change position after this question, if they hadn't really been thinking about the logic of it. They might have an explanation that makes sense to you. If you're still holding different opinions you might need to be the one to choose, just so the matter can proceed.

Ultimately my answer is that while I understand why you said no, it could even be the answer that works best for your group, but I think your uncertainty comes from not having that no standing on a firm foundation. Of course, as a sufferer of Anxiety myself, it could just be that too, it's not always easy to trust yourself, even when you should, especially in an unfamiliar situation.

Another acceptable answer is "No, for now. I'm going to look into this more." Which you are doing here.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On the actual situation.

My main question is "What's happening for everything else?" There are very few things a character can gain at level up that make sense to gain all at once. As you say, where did the wizard get his new spell? Where did the Ranger's animal companion come from? Why do I have a tail now?

If you're levelling up in the middle of an adventure you're either going to have to leave characters without some of their new class features (which is REALLY not fun if other people are getting them) or you're going to have to compromise the realism a bit. The general accepted logic is that your characters are constantly picking things up, adding to their pool of experience, and at level up it all finally pays off, they finally put the last pieces together to make a new idea or technique workable. This could explain why the wizard's finally managed to invent his new spells, but doesn't work quite so well for learning a language "Surely he understands at least some of what they're saying, right? He's just about to master the language." But frankly it makes as little sense as the rogue only getting better at jumping at the end "Oooh, bending my knees just as I land doesn't hurt so much." The biggest problem for me is that it does actually make sense that the sorcerer might get his spells at an opportune moment in the dungeon, so the realistic scenario isn't "Everybody gets nothing until you get a chance to rest and process what you've learned," though frankly that's still my preferred method, as it makes more sense than the alternative. Many games, particularly published adventures I've seen, don't really have time for downtime at every level though, so, in order to keep things moving and the narrative flowing I will usually just have people levelling up all at once.

----------------------------------------------------------------

My romantic ideal is for everybody to be picking up little bits of their level as they adventure, but the book-keeping and balancing of this is ridiculous. My more practical ideal, when I have full control of the narrative and pacing, is to have players level up during more extended downtime, but to tell me what they're taking well in advance, so that when they've got enough experience to level I can have things pop up at the right moment. Does the druid manage to wild-shape into a bird for the first time just as they're about to fall to their death. Was the sorcerer going to pick up exactly the right spell for this situation next level? Not something I'd use often, but something I'd love to have available in my GM toolbox.

[Luccan]

Your reasoning is logical and fair, if you give proper downtime and hold to it for this game,. However, consider rethinking the wizard thing. The two spells per level is intended as the minimum a wizard gets and I think is supposed to represent their inherent learning from practicing their craft. If a wizard had to learn every spell from someone else, they'd be less of a scholar of the arcane and more of a spell plagiarist. Plus their progression as casters becomes entirely dependent on being able to go somewhere with adequate arcane knowledge each time they level. If you do something time dependent or they're stuck in a dungeon when they level, the wizard essentially gets nothing (Ok, skills, HP, and maybe a feat, but spells are their thing. Plus they can't even get the skill they're really good at with your houserule: Knowledge). Wizards are already somewhat dependent upon DM fiat to find the spells they want (though they can be very powerful with just a few), don't make the two they actually get to pick on level up potentially impossible to obtain.

Unless wizards are the only caster in your game and you want to keep them low-powered, but I get the feeling you aren't going for that.

[Mordaedil]

Retcon: Retroactive Continuity -- reframing past events to serve a current plot need.

"You know when you were resting after confronting the goblins? Now that you've gained a new level, that time was (as of now, retroactively) spent to learn the corresponding abilities".

Unspecified rest time becomes specified training time. Yeah, it's retconning.
That's not how we do level-up, nor is it how the player's handbook describes levelups. It even flies in the face of how D&D creators did it in the days of old. Doesn't matter how long you rest after beating the goblins earning that level-up, you have to go back to town and spend weeks or months learning your new skills, is how it is described.

I mean, you can play it using retcon ruling if you like. But that isn't very D&D.

[Luccan]

That's not how we do level-up, nor is it how the player's handbook describes levelups. It even flies in the face of how D&D creators did it in the days of old. Doesn't matter how long you rest after beating the goblins earning that level-up, you have to go back to town and spend weeks or months learning your new skills, is how it is described.

I mean, you can play it using retcon ruling if you like. But that isn't very D&D.

I just looked it up. Seems like it's one of those really annoying XP rules pretty much everyone ignores (at least in my experience). Edit: Also, RAW your DM is just supposed to make life harder for you if you don't get downtime. It doesn't actually say you need it to level up. Which is probably why a lot of people don't use it.

Serious question: Does your group use multiclass penalties?

[Mordaedil]

I just looked it up. Seems like it's one of those really annoying XP rules pretty much everyone ignores (at least in my experience). Edit: Also, RAW your DM is just supposed to make life harder for you if you don't get downtime. It doesn't actually say you need it to level up. Which is probably why a lot of people don't use it.

Serious question: Does your group use multiclass penalties?

No, me and my DM agree it just penalizes martial characters and it is pointless.

We also don't actually do leveling up as RAW, because as you say it can get in the way and it's a bit hopeless to track months of downtime when you are on a ticking timer and you need to level up.

But we still don't do any leveling up until we've left the dungeon we're in, but if we're in hostile territory, like say the underdark, we'd still level up in the underdark, but it'd still be while we're camping out.

What I play and what the rules say are completely separate things.