PDA

View Full Version : (3.5) The worst (serious) homebrew you've seen



Protecar
2010-09-30, 12:40 AM
Inspired by another thread, what's the worst homebrew you've seen in your time? (either trying to pull of or seen pulled on someone else). I'd like to see as much detail related to the particular homebrew as possible.

I say serious because anyone can make a build with +OVER 9000!!! Everything. But I'd like to see the one's that actually have had some thought put in them--but are nevertheless insane or just pushing the buck too far.

Thoughts? :smallsmile:

Stone Heart
2010-09-30, 01:19 AM
This Bard Variant (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Bard,_Variant_(3.5e_Class)) allows you to use Wail of the Banshee at will at 18th level as long as you are using Bardic Music. at lower levels its the same, just with weaker spells, and there are other bad things there.

Frosty
2010-09-30, 02:01 AM
Inspired by another thread, what's the worst homebrew you've seen in your time? (either trying to pull of or seen pulled on someone else). I'd like to see as much detail related to the particular homebrew as possible.

I say serious because anyone can make a build with +OVER 9000!!! Everything. But I'd like to see the one's that actually have had some thought put in them--but are nevertheless insane or just pushing the buck too far.

Thoughts? :smallsmile:
Please google "Lightning Warrior" and yes, the author was serious. Lack of a familiar...SO balancing...:smallamused:

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-30, 02:02 AM
I thought Lightning Warrior was a parody?

Aharon
2010-09-30, 02:58 AM
@Stone Heart
I think that class is actually balanced if there are lots of Tier 1s in the group :smalltongue:
You won't kill anything but mooks with wail of the banshee at this level.

Lord_Gareth
2010-09-30, 02:59 AM
I demand a link to Lightning Warrior, for my google-fu is weak indeed.

HunterOfJello
2010-09-30, 03:28 AM
I demand a link to Lightning Warrior, for my google-fu is weak indeed.

Here's a quick Google-Fu guide for you to follow in the future.

1. Look for the keywords as a regular google search. Lightning Warrior (http://www.google.com/search?q=Lightning+Warrior&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
The top few links don't have any information about d&d and Lightning Warrior related material so we'll have to narrow the search. (Note: The bottom link does have the information, but scrolling down forever gets boring.)

2. Look up the same previous keywords but with extra keywords added in to make things more specific.
Lightning Warrior d&d (http://www.google.com/search?q=Lightning+Warrior+d%26d&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
Lightning Warrior 3.5e (http://www.google.com/search?q=Lightning+Warrior+d%26d&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hnZ&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=Lightning+Warrior+3.5e&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=98e025633f17c485)

By now we have easily found our result. The Lightning Warrior

~

If you can't find what you're looking for after that then there are a few other things you can try.

3. Using parenthesis in a term like "Lightning Warrior" ensures the the search results include the words together as a single phrase.

"Lightning Warrior" (http://www.google.com/search?q=Lightning+Warrior+d%26d&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=s8E&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22lightning+warrior%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=98e025633f17c485)

4. By starting the search with 'Site:www.giantip.com' you can look for a term within a single website's listings. In this case it would return results only form the GItp website.

This is a good method for finding out more information and discussion on a topic like the Lightning Warrior

Site:www.giantitp.com lightning warrior (http://www.google.com/search?q=Lightning+Warrior+d%26d&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=site%3Awww.giantitp.com+lightning+warrior&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=site%3Awww.giantitp.com+lightning+warrior&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=98e025633f17c485)

~

TL;DR I explained some google-fu and how to find the LIGHTNING WARRIOR (http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Lightning_Warrior)

BobVosh
2010-09-30, 03:35 AM
There is always the more passive aggressive way hunter :P
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lightning+warrior+3.5+D%26D

Morph Bark
2010-09-30, 03:57 AM
TL;DR I explained some google-fu and how to find the LIGHTNING WARRIOR (http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Lightning_Warrior)

WHAT?! IT DOESN'T EVEN GET 8 SKILL POINTS PER LEVEL!!!!!

:smallwink:

akma
2010-09-30, 04:08 AM
I once saw a class, which the maker obviously didn`t invest in making, that had proffession (mail delivery) in it`s class skills (the class was written in hebrew, so I won`t bother finding the link).

Rixx
2010-09-30, 04:21 AM
Being an editor for Pathfinder Database, I've seen a lot of really broken content. This one's one of the worst:

http://www.pathfinderdb.com/character-options/classes/408-zealot

This is the toned down version, I believe - it used to have a d12 hit die and 6 levels of casting. Plus, with the existence of the Paladin, Cleric, and Fighter, this class has no flavor reason to exist.

Androgeus
2010-09-30, 04:55 AM
WHAT?! IT DOESN'T EVEN GET 8 SKILL POINTS PER LEVEL!!!!!

:smallwink:

I more bothered by the lack of a familiar. How is it meant to meaning contribute to the party with out a familiar? So isn't worth the flavour gained by dropping it

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-30, 05:59 AM
Being an editor for Pathfinder Database, I've seen a lot of really broken content. This one's one of the worst:

http://www.pathfinderdb.com/character-options/classes/408-zealot

This is the toned down version, I believe - it used to have a d12 hit die and 6 levels of casting. Plus, with the existence of the Paladin, Cleric, and Fighter, this class has no flavor reason to exist.

...

Okay, maybe it's just me, this has been hugely toned down fro when you first saw ir or Pathfinder is much lower in power than it would appear to be (I play (my variant of) 3.5 myself), but I don't see what's so broken about this.

I'm not sure I see what the problem with this version is (except for Quickened Casting, which is pretty broken, but that is probably Complete Champion's fault for introducing such an idea in the first place). It's not really any more broken than, say, the Rebalanced Paladin class I use (made by Seerow and OneWinged4ngel, who actually knew what they were talking about in 3.5) - or a Tier 1 caster, is it?

Morph Bark
2010-09-30, 06:18 AM
...

Okay, maybe it's just me, this has been hugely toned down fro when you first saw ir or Pathfinder is much lower in power than it would appear to be (I play (my variant of) 3.5 myself), but I don't see what's so broken about this.

I'm not sure I see what the problem with this version is (except for Quickened Casting, which is pretty broken, but that is probably Complete Champion's fault for introducing such an idea in the first place). It's not really any more broken than, say, the Rebalanced Paladin class I use (made by Seerow and OneWinged4ngel, who actually knew what they were talking about in 3.5) - or a Tier 1 caster, is it?

Comparing something to a Tier 1 caster isn't really... productive I'd say, consider Tier 1s can do a boatload of things and then some (a fleetload of things?). Comparing it to the Duskblade however, which it seems to have been based off of... it's loads better, considering it gets a lot more spells (and if it used to go up to level 6 spells, even worse). It's not really broken so much as it is just bad. The Divine Strike stuff makes it even worse since you get a free (un)holy weapon all the time at level 3, which gets better and even stacks with the actual (un)holy properties.

Plus, I don't get where the random Will save bonuses come from.

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-30, 06:28 AM
Comparing something to a Tier 1 caster isn't really... productive I'd say, consider Tier 1s can do a boatload of things and then some (a fleetload of things?).

When comparing for actual rules use? No, I agree. When comparing for "worst homebrew", then yes, I think you should be comparing it to Tier 1s and Tier 5/6s, and if seeing the worst of homebrew is actually any worse than than the worst of the published materials.

I looked at that zealot and thought that, while it could use a little more tweaking, it would be quite salvageable is I were so inclined (certainly for 3.5 and I didn't think Pathfinder was THAT different). It certainly wouldn't snap a game in half or exascerbate the existing problems much worse than they are now. I'd hardly say it was really that bad. If that's really the worst Rixx has encountered, then the Pathfinder database submitters must be a fairly reasonably concientius crowd, put it that way!

GoatBoy
2010-09-30, 06:36 AM
Voodoo Doll (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Voodoo_Doll_%28Plushie_Class%29_%283.5e_Class%29)
I was in a game once where someone played one of these. It was one of those situations where you want to ask the DM why the character gets XP, since they are less than useless.

Lalomancer (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lalomancer_%283.5e_Class%29)
A friend of mine played one of these for a while. She's a great person, so I could never really tell her how completely stupid the class was.

Crossblade
2010-09-30, 06:42 AM
I remember a homebrewed race once that was fluffed to live underground, had wings, no darkvision and could cast fireball at will. Some else will have to find it, I'm stuck on my iPhone for 11 more hours.

Spiryt
2010-09-30, 06:46 AM
CW Samurai.

Greenish
2010-09-30, 07:48 AM
Being an editor for Pathfinder Database, I've seen a lot of really broken content. This one's one of the worst:

http://www.pathfinderdb.com/character-options/classes/408-zealotA divine Duskblade, a bit stronger than the original. I'd say it'd be high tier 3 in 3.5.

Lhurgyof
2010-09-30, 07:51 AM
DBZ warrior... it has been allowed in some games I've played it. It was seriously the dumbest god damned thing I've ever seen. :smallmad:

Edit: Link. DBZ warrior (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/DBZ_Warrior_%283.5e_Class%29)

Distructo Disc: The character throws a sharp disc of pure energy at the target. Make a ranged touch attack with a range of 150 ft. if it hits, the target takes 5d10 damage. This disc also has a vorpal property, and any critical hit with this attack requires the target to make a fortitude save (DC 10+1/2 class level+Wis Modifier) or be sliced in half, dead. This effect works on creatures not normally affected by critical hits, such as undead and constructs, but not on creatures with regeneration. Creatures with regeneration take an additional 3d10 damage, and the attack counts as lethal damage for them. Cost: 10 Ki points.

I mean, the fluff is so dumb and does not fit into a D&D game. Dx

Tyndmyr
2010-09-30, 08:40 AM
I once saw a skill based class(apparently by someone who had never heard of factotum). It was based of rogue. The player justified massive skill bonuses(10 per level, and a stacking +1 bonus to all skills for each level in the class, all skills are class skills) based on the loss of sneak attack.

He then used the argument "well, it needs to do SOMETHING in combat" to justify using those skills as ways to attack. In short, he used skills as attack roll modifiers for a wide variety of attacks, like tripping or disarming. It ended up being terribly, terribly broken, but was actually used in game.

true_shinken
2010-09-30, 08:49 AM
I mean, the fluff is so dumb and does not fit into a D&D game. Dx
Watch your tongue while talking about DBZ, young man!

Also, the Lightning Warrior on Myth-Weavers has had his text slightly altered. It now looks like a parody. The original, though, was damn serious.

Esser-Z
2010-09-30, 09:01 AM
Pathfinder Shaman (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/shaman). Unless it has been updated (didn't reread it)... It is (or was) an absurdly complex class, using its own mechanic, which relies on DM fiat, and is entirely useless at least at level one, if you can even figure out how to use it at all...

Greenish
2010-09-30, 09:02 AM
DBZ warrior... it has been allowed in some games I've played it. It was seriously the dumbest god damned thing I've ever seen. :smallmad:

Edit: Link. DBZ warrior (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/DBZ_Warrior_%283.5e_Class%29)

Distructo Disc: The character throws a sharp disc of pure energy at the target. Make a ranged touch attack with a range of 150 ft. if it hits, the target takes 5d10 damage. This disc also has a vorpal property, and any critical hit with this attack requires the target to make a fortitude save (DC 10+1/2 class level+Wis Modifier) or be sliced in half, dead. This effect works on creatures not normally affected by critical hits, such as undead and constructs, but not on creatures with regeneration. Creatures with regeneration take an additional 3d10 damage, and the attack counts as lethal damage for them. Cost: 10 Ki points.

I mean, the fluff is so dumb and does not fit into a D&D game. DxMonks can learn to throw their "Ki energy" with a feat, I believe.

Thiyr
2010-09-30, 09:14 AM
Strangely, I have to give my vote to an item. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Sure-Strike_Matches_%283.5e_Equipment%29)

I just can't forget how bad an idea this was, knowing that this item -already exists- but doesn't have the risk of lighting yourself on fire.

Jarawara
2010-09-30, 09:19 AM
A bazillion years ago, in a land called "AD&D 1st Edition", I was gaming with this kid down the street. He was taking classes to learn Karate at the time, and wanted to play a martial arts type character.

So he homebrewed a 'Karate Class'.

Now of course, as any martial arts enthusiast will tell you, a diciple of Karate can kill you with a blow from either arm, or a kick from either leg. Therefore, the 'Karate' class would have four attacks per round. (Assuming you're playing a race that has the usual four limbs - I guess a thri-kreen would get more.)

A sword blow can be lethal. A Karate blow can be lethal. Therefore, a Karate blow is equal to a sword blow. And thus the Karate class starts with four attacks per round, each doing 1d8 plus strength bonus, at 1st level. Obviously, that would improve over time, as the Karate character advanced in levels.

Mind you - the 'Monk' class already existed, complete with it's one attack per round doing 1d4 damage at 1st level. But the kid didn't want to play some monastic dude who just reads clerical scriptures and never actually trained at combat. *Facepalm*


I guess the Karate character wouldn't get a familiar either, so it must have been balanced.

Aharon
2010-09-30, 09:31 AM
Well, also 2nd Ed.

I did that homebrew, and it was based on the Valheru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valheru#Valheru). It got the ability "Valheru can survive comets or avalanches falling on them" at 5th level.
I don't remember the details, but I think 10th was a dragon mount and 15th immunity to elements.
Oh, and it got exponentially increasing boni to its stats (like +2 at 2nd level, +4 at 4th, +16 at 6th, and so on), breaking the normal 2nd ed limit of 25.

The DM allowed it. :smallwink:

Lhurgyof
2010-09-30, 09:33 AM
Watch your tongue while talking about DBZ, young man!

Also, the Lightning Warrior on Myth-Weavers has had his text slightly altered. It now looks like a parody. The original, though, was damn serious.

I am a self-proclaimed DBZ hater. Even if it's not DBZ related, it just has dumb abilities for D&D games.


Monks can learn to throw their "Ki energy" with a feat, I believe.

Yes, but it's a rare occurrence. Especially when we see a homebrew race from Final Fantasy playing a homebrew DBZ class (I hate FF and DBZ with every inch of my soul, but they still just seem stupid of their own merits). These types of dumb and/or overpowered homebrew were common in this game. :smallsigh:

Morph Bark
2010-09-30, 09:41 AM
I mean, the fluff is so dumb and does not fit into a D&D game. Dx

A lot of things don't fit in standard DnD games. Personally, I've seen it playtested in one of my games and it was interesting - the player didn't have much fun though because the other player (there were two) was playing an overpowered class compared to his.

And you forget three big things that DnD itself recommends: refluffing, refluffing and refluffing.

true_shinken
2010-09-30, 09:42 AM
These types of dumb and/or overpowered homebrew were common in this game. :smallsigh:
This just a flavour thing, then. Looks like you were playing in the wrong group.

Lhurgyof
2010-09-30, 09:44 AM
A lot of things don't fit in standard DnD games. Personally, I've seen it playtested in one of my games and it was interesting - the player didn't have much fun though because the other player (there were two) was playing an overpowered class compared to his.

And you forget three big things that DnD itself recommends: refluffing, refluffing and refluffing.

It's hard to refluff a flying roxo (sp?) with blooming onion hair that shoots lazer beams and destructo disks.


This just a flavour thing, then. Looks like you were playing in the wrong group.

No, as in all homebrew from D&D wiki was pretty much allowed, and the DM had bad judgment of what was and wasn't overpowered. If it was from a dumb anime thing like DBZ or Final Fantasy, no matter how the class actually works, it was allowed. :smallsigh:

Edit: It was my regular gaming group, but one of the players was DMing, he is self-proclaimed a good gamer/DM although he is probably the worst player I've EVER seen. But I'll stop before I start a rant.

Morph Bark
2010-09-30, 09:46 AM
It's hard to refluff a flying roxo (sp?) with blooming onion hair that shoots lazer beams and destructo disks.

Calling it different things is a good start. Name it a biomagical experiment crossing a plant with a bird (or a flying squirrel) and call its abilities magic, focusing on blasting. BAM. You got a Monk/Warmage. (Or Monk/Warlock, but the DBZ homebrew PDF I have seems more like Warmage-ish.)

Myth
2010-09-30, 09:48 AM
Well, also 2nd Ed.

I did that homebrew, and it was based on the Valheru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valheru#Valheru). It got the ability "Valheru can survive comets or avalanches falling on them" at 5th level.
I don't remember the details, but I think 10th was a dragon mount and 15th immunity to elements.
Oh, and it got exponentially increasing boni to its stats (like +2 at 2nd level, +4 at 4th, +16 at 6th, and so on), breaking the normal 2nd ed limit of 25.

The DM allowed it. :smallwink:

If i remember correctly the 2E Time Stop allowed you to harm your enemies? If that is correct it doesn't matter what stats or mounts it got so long as you don't get 9th level Arcane spells.

Lhurgyof
2010-09-30, 09:49 AM
Calling it different things is a good start. Name it a biomagical experiment crossing a plant with a bird (or a flying squirrel) and call its abilities magic, focusing on blasting. BAM. You got a Monk/Warmage. (Or Monk/Warlock, but the DBZ homebrew PDF I have seems more like Warmage-ish.)

It wasn't refluffed, though. That was what the DM was encouraging. A roxo with blooming onion hair shooting lazer beams and destructo disks. Really ruined D&D for me. I (and the majority of the players) were much happier when I got back to running.

Tengu_temp
2010-09-30, 09:51 AM
Psion. No, I don't mean the 3.5 psion, or even 3.0 psion. I mean a Psion PrC, based on the rules of AD&D psionics, just less random. This class could be entered as early as level 4, and rom the beginning you could get abilities like at-will teleportation, or insta-killing any construct with no save. The only good thing about this atrocity is that it was released for NWN, not actual DND, in its very large extra PrC mod.

Actually, I'm pretty sure there were even worse classes there. Let's see if I can dig them up.

Morph Bark
2010-09-30, 10:20 AM
It wasn't refluffed, though. That was what the DM was encouraging. A roxo with blooming onion hair shooting lazer beams and destructo disks. Really ruined D&D for me. I (and the majority of the players) were much happier when I got back to running.

Ah, well it doesn't work for every group. Mine was perfectly fine with mixing things up and loved it (though no roxos or destructo disks happened), treating it like any other campaign - although it did run longer than the other campaigns. When a group does something that many of the group's members don't like though... there's when you get problems. Finding something all players can like maximizes the fun you'll have, and for your group, your DMing style apparently suits them much better than the other DM's.

true_shinken
2010-09-30, 10:23 AM
If it was from a dumb anime thing like DBZ or Final Fantasy, no matter how the class actually works, it was allowed. :smallsigh:

This is just getting offensive. Disliking something is your right, but saying repeatedly that it's 'dumb' is just rude and unnecessary.

Morph Bark
2010-09-30, 10:28 AM
DBZ warrior... it has been allowed in some games I've played it. It was seriously the dumbest god damned thing I've ever seen. :smallmad:

Edit: Link. DBZ warrior (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/DBZ_Warrior_%283.5e_Class%29)

...actually looking at it now, I can see why this is bad. Good god, that table needs fixing, and it looks prettymuch like a Monk twisted inside out. The stuff in the PDF I got is much better and made Super Saiyans a racial PrC. This would have given things like half-dragons with glowing golden hair that they actually can't even have.

Even though I like DBZ and Final Fantasy and a boatload of other anime and video games (and let's not forget things like The Matrix, PotC, LotR, HP, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. for good measure), if you're going to do something, do it right. This? This isn't right. :smallfrown:

Aharon
2010-09-30, 10:32 AM
@Myth
Dragon Mount. Dragons were casters even back then :smallbiggrin:

true_shinken
2010-09-30, 10:32 AM
...actually looking at it now, I can see why this is bad.
Well, I did the same... and I agree with you. It simply sucks, even from a fluff point of view. Super Saiyan as a class feature?!
Like I said, D&D wiki is full of awfully bad homebrew.

Lhurgyof
2010-09-30, 10:40 AM
This is just getting offensive. Disliking something is your right, but saying repeatedly that it's 'dumb' is just rude and unnecessary.

I'm just so used to his ignorant belief that eveything he loves is the best thing ever, and anyone who doesn't like DBZ or FF is retarded, so sorry for the rant.

Violet Octopus
2010-09-30, 10:59 AM
Yeah, militant fandom can be annoying, especially when they make a blatantly unoriginal character based on it.

Erk, that DBZ Warrior is appallingly written. "The character uses their Ki to increase the power output of their muscles. When activated, the character receives a bonus equal to double their Wisdom Modifier to their strength. As a result of this increased strength, however, the character becomes less dexterous, and takes a penalty to their Dexterity equal to half the Str bonus"
*headdesk*

At least the class has one salvageable ability though. I'd refluff that "Distructo Disc" ability as Xena throwing her chakram, and give it to an NPC :smallcool:

Yuki Akuma
2010-09-30, 11:25 AM
Yeah, militant fandom can be annoying,

Militant anti-fandom can be in many ways worse.

Lhurgyof
2010-09-30, 11:57 AM
Militant anti-fandom can be in many ways worse.

It's more of an attitude I have to pick up because of the people I game around, they're all militant fans.

Doug Lampert
2010-09-30, 12:11 PM
There is always the more passive aggressive way hunter :P
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lightning+warrior+3.5+D%26D

Which, at present, links back to GitP discussions of stuff like how to find the class on it's top several hits!

Other searches hit a quite different 5 level prestige class.

The class being discussed is probably this one:
http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Lightning_Warrior

It doesn't hurt to actually give the link, it takes less time than telling someone how to find it, and it may well work better since what Google does today may not be what it does tomorrow.

Greenish
2010-09-30, 12:19 PM
what Google does today may not be what it does tomorrow.Today, the internet, tomorrow, the world!

Urpriest
2010-09-30, 12:23 PM
Today, the internet, tomorrow, the world!

Tomorrow? Google has had the world since yesterday at least!

DragoonWraith
2010-09-30, 12:26 PM
Relevant:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/password_reuse.png

On topic:
I strongly oppose this thread's existence. If the homebrew was meant seriously, then people should constructively criticize it, to improve it, not start a thread ridiculing it. That's purely malicious and I'm fairly disappointed that this thread is 2 pages long without anyone yet objecting to it.

Doug Lampert
2010-09-30, 12:40 PM
Relevant:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/password_reuse.png

On topic:
I strongly oppose this thread's existence. If the homebrew was meant seriously, then people should constructively criticize it, to improve it, not start a thread ridiculing it. That's purely malicious and I'm fairly disappointed that this thread is 2 pages long without anyone yet objecting to it.

Sometimes there's nothing constructive to say.

I had a player bring me a 3.0 class that got +5 BAB, a no penalty flurry attack on unarmed attacks, a big bonus to AC and lots of HP and other stuff at level 1, it went up from there. He utterly refused to accept that this was overpowered or to tone it down because the alleged disadvantages (inability to use manufactured weapons or wear armor) ballanced the advantages.

Yep, perfectly ballanced from level 1 with all the level 1 monks with a pair of +6 magic weapons. Of course at level 2 that went out the window when it got its itterative attack and additional bonuses.

I'm not sure what constructive critisism was supposed to look like. Niether was ANYONE else in the group, as we all thought, "That's insane", I don't care WHAT group of characters from some book you're trying to emulate. They're level 7 Monks or something if you want those abilities." But he insisted it needed to have them at level 1.

ErrantX
2010-09-30, 12:42 PM
I strongly oppose this thread's existence. If the homebrew was meant seriously, then people should constructively criticize it, to improve it, not start a thread ridiculing it. That's purely malicious and I'm fairly disappointed that this thread is 2 pages long without anyone yet objecting to it.

I agree with DragoonWraith; this is just troll bait.

I'll give one internet to the mod that makes this thread die for being just mean spirited and causing arguments. That's not what we're about here.

-X

DragoonWraith
2010-09-30, 12:45 PM
Sometimes there's nothing constructive to say.

I had a player bring me a 3.0 class that got +5 BAB, a no penalty flurry attack on unarmed attacks, a big bonus to AC and lots of HP and other stuff at level 1, it went up from there. He utterly refused to accept that this was overpowered or to tone it down because the alleged disadvantages (inability to use manufactured weapons or wear armor) ballanced the advantages.

Yep, perfectly ballanced from level 1 with all the level 1 monks with a pair of +6 magic weapons. Of course at level 2 that went out the window when it got its itterative attack and additional bonuses.

I'm not sure what constructive critisism was supposed to look like. Niether was ANYONE else in the group, as we all thought, "That's insane", I don't care WHAT group of characters from some book you're trying to emulate. They're level 7 Monks or something if you want those abilities." But he insisted it needed to have them at level 1.
You explain why it's imbalanced. You point out its competition, and how it blows them away. You don't just sit there and laugh at him for thinking it was a good idea.

Doug Lampert
2010-09-30, 12:47 PM
You explain why it's imbalanced. You point out its competition, and how it blows them away. You don't just sit there and laugh at him for thinking it was a good idea.

We did that. Repeatedly, for over TWO HOURS. We told him it was overpowered, why it was overpowered, and how he could fix it.

Sometimes ridicule is the only solution. Seriously.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-30, 01:02 PM
The "What are the worst X" threads are not necessarily mean. It's a means of comparison, and yes, sometimes humor. Just because someone wrote some bad homebrew doesn't mean they're a bad person...and I don't think any of us would assume that.

Plus, if you create anything, it'll be beneficial to have a thick skin when it comes to commentary. Commentary is useful, even when negative, and sometimes even when very negative, sarcastic, etc. I'd certainly rather have that for something I create than no feedback at all.

DragoonWraith
2010-09-30, 01:12 PM
We did that. Repeatedly, for over TWO HOURS. We told him it was overpowered, why it was overpowered, and how he could fix it.

Sometimes ridicule is the only solution. Seriously.
{Scrubbed}

Yes, sometimes friendly teasing among friends isn't horrible; maybe you're all close and he can take it in stride. Maybe it makes the group closer.

{Scrubbed}


Basically, serious work should be taken seriously. To do otherwise is to disrespect and insult the author. And I'm calling you all on it, because the Internet makes it all too easy to forget that.

EDIT: It's pointed out that people disagree with my definition of Trolling. Certainly the definition used by the Forum Rules do not match mine. To clarify: I'm using the word to mean exactly what I said, not to accuse anyone of breaking the rules. If something would be rude in real life, but online because of anonymity it slides, that's trolling to me. At the same time, I don't think anyone has been intentionally trying to piss people off or whatever; I assume that everyone is honestly just having some fun, not realizing how hurtful it could be. I'm just pointing out that it is.

The Mentalist
2010-09-30, 01:34 PM
I'm going to throw one of my own creations in the ring, my first draft of the Novice (a prestige class) got 9 levels of metamagic for free, no CL limits (along with +40 to his Caster Level) and an absurd amount of 0-3rd level spells.

It was basically The Mailman in a can

It has since been toned down.


I do agree with DW though, this is a bit harsh.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-30, 01:36 PM
No. Trolling is posting things just to rile people up, with no intention of actual discussion. It's an attention grabbing tactic.

Just because you dislike something, or people are critical of something, does not make it trolling. It can be harmless venting(especially if it's not intended for the original author to see), honest feedback, or a general opinion as to the merits of something.

There's really no difference between asking about the worst homebrew you've seen, and asking about the worst official books you've seen. Both have a wide range of quality, and you can certainly have a reasonable discussion about either.

ErrantX
2010-09-30, 01:41 PM
Linking to something you think is the worst ever and then laughing about it and making fun of it is mean spirited to the core. I've reported this thread, hopefully a moderator will close it. This is just cruel guys. If you don't have anything nice to say, well, you know what your folks always told you.

It's easy to tear down, not so easy to create.

-X

DragoonWraith
2010-09-30, 01:47 PM
No. Trolling is posting things just to rile people up, with no intention of actual discussion. It's an attention grabbing tactic.
You're correct that this is the board's definition of Trolling. I wasn't accusing anyone of breaking the Forum Rules per se (if only because that would, itself, be against the rules). No one committed Trolling as defined by the board's rules.

But that is not the only definition of Trolling. Really, at its most basic, Trolling is activities that people engage in in the Internet, that they wouldn't do in real life, and only do on the Internet because of the veil of anonymity. Or, if you disagree, just replace all instances of "Trolling" in my posts with whatever word you'd like for that, because that's what I mean.


Just because you dislike something, or people are critical of something, does not make it trolling. It can be harmless venting(especially if it's not intended for the original author to see), honest feedback, or a general opinion as to the merits of something.
Yes, because talking behind others' backs is such a polite and respectful thing to do. You say it's harmless - but then you consider all homebrew "unnecessary". I don't think you're in any position to comment on others' works when you dismiss all of it out of hand, personally.

This thread is not about honest feedback, or general opinion. This thread is about ridiculing people. That is my entire problem with it.


There's really no difference between asking about the worst homebrew you've seen, and asking about the worst official books you've seen. Both have a wide range of quality, and you can certainly have a reasonable discussion about either.
Actually, there are significant differences. Professional attempts are held to a higher standard of quality. Yes, a lot of homebrew is very good - a lot of it a far cry better than WotC's - but unlike WotC, homebrewers are amateurs. Most of these classes are people's first works, I'm sure. They're still learning. Do you go into 3rd grade class rooms and laugh at the kids for not being able to immediately master algebra? Just as importantly, people pay WotC money for their work. Being professional automatically entails a higher expectation. Did you pay the author of homebrew for his work? No? Then you're not in any position to ridicule him. You can help him out, if you like, you can just deny use of the homebrew, if you don't, but making fun of him for it is never acceptable.

Fawsto
2010-09-30, 01:53 PM
Thinking about it...

I think all playgrounders are, were or will be Trolls one day. Troll in the Playground, I mean.

Just relax guys, if there is something inherently wrong with this thread, a Mod will come and warn us.

DragoonWraith
2010-09-30, 02:00 PM
Just relax guys, if there is something inherently wrong with this thread, a Mod will come and warn us.
There is something inherently wrong with this thread. I don't need a Moderator to tell me that. In fact, everything about this thread is wrong.

I'm not saying everyone who's posted is evil, heartless, or even mean. I assume that people don't realize just how cruel this entire concept is. I'm not suggesting that everyone get in trouble. I'm just pointing out that this is a bad idea, and suggesting that people just let it die.


I mean, what if I made a "The worst (serious) houserules you've seen", and started linking to recruitment threads in the PbP section, laughing at how stupid I think the houserules are? Would anyone think that is OK?

Morph Bark
2010-09-30, 02:05 PM
Wait, was getting this thread off-topic the point you all were going for in an attempt to get it locked? :smallconfused:

That seems rather hypocritical to me, to be honest. If it is better to critique and comment on homebrew with the aim of the creator improving upon it, why not do the same for threads like these, hm?

Fawsto
2010-09-30, 02:09 PM
Well... I guess you are correct on the fact that turning the ridiculous on someone else's work is quite a lot more easy when it is not face to face. That, indeed, is wrong. But there is no damage happening here.

{Scrubbed}

What I mean is, on a 'legal' perspective, I don't think anyone has broken the rules yet. I am not fond of making fun of people, so I am refraining to discuss the topics. I've decided to just turn my back and walk away.

DragoonWraith
2010-09-30, 02:09 PM
Wait, was getting this thread off-topic the point you all were going for in an attempt to get it locked? :smallconfused:

That seems rather hypocritical to me, to be honest. If it is better to critique and comment on homebrew with the aim of the creator improving upon it, why not do the same for threads like these, hm?
A. No, the point here was to object to this thread's very existence because I find it highly offensive.

B. There already is an entire forum for critiquing and commenting on homebrew. Even if someone wanted a thread for it here, this is a terrible thread for it. If the OP wants to do that, he should do it in a new thread because this one has been tainted by its beginnings.


Well... I guess you are correct on the fact that turning the ridiculous on someone else's work is quite a lot more easy when it is not face to face. That, indeed, is wrong. But there is no damage happening here.
You assume.


Do anyone here has been directly ofended by the posts? I just think that we should simply stick to the topic. Start discussing things we like or things we don't like, this is Troll bait IMO.
I have been. None of my classes have been linked to, but I find this entire thread abhorrent.

Also, Vigilante Modding (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).


What I mean is, on a 'legal' perspective, I don't think anyone has broken the rules yet. I am not fond of making fun of people, so I am refraining to discuss the topics. I've decided to just turn my back and walk away.
Yeah, I'm not going to comment on the rules. This isn't about the rules; the rules are up to the moderators. This is just... I mean, would you act like this in public? If not, why would you here?

It's an easy mistake to make; I've done it myself. I'm not calling people terrible persons or whatever. I'm just pointing out that this is in very poor taste, and is rather offensive.

Again, I ask:

I mean, what if I made a "The worst (serious) houserules you've seen", and started linking to recruitment threads in the PbP section, laughing at how stupid I think the houserules are? Would anyone think that is OK?

Fax Celestis
2010-09-30, 02:32 PM
I have been. None of my classes have been linked to, but I find this entire thread abhorrent.
Me too, both counts. It's why I've stayed out of it so far.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-30, 02:34 PM
A. No, the point here was to object to this thread's very existence because I find it highly offensive.

Why is it offensive to you? Nobody is saying that all homebrewers are bad, or should be judged by the worst examples. Unless I missed it, nobody is criticizing your work or you.

The example I pointed out, for instance, I stated no name. I don't worry about the original author happening across it, because we eventually came to the conclusion that it was in fact pretty broken. Playtesting'll do that. I assure you, I am willing to give people feedback face to face. I presume others are as well.

Another piece of homebrew, sorta, is the 3.5 adaptation fan stuff for spelljammer. Not imbalanced, just woefully incomplete, and really poorly laid out. Mostly unusuable, and I even have the 2nd ed materials they pulled from.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-30, 02:35 PM
Why is it offensive to you? Nobody is saying that all homebrewers are bad, or should be judged by the worst examples. Unless I missed it, nobody is criticizing your work or you.

One can only get better if they are given constructive criticism. This thread is about deconstructive criticism.

DragoonWraith
2010-09-30, 02:42 PM
Why is it offensive to you? Nobody is saying that all homebrewers are bad, or should be judged by the worst examples. Unless I missed it, nobody is criticizing your work or you.
So I'm only allowed to be offended by things that are directed at me? I mean, I can go on and on about things (slurs, mostly) that, even if not directed at me, very much offend me. I'm not allowed to be? Excuse me?

Ecalsneerg
2010-09-30, 02:51 PM
I do not like the idea behind this thread at all, but I'm not going to tell the people who want to participate not to do it. I'm going to acknowledge the fact that tis been reported, that a moderator will be along and he will be the judge of whether or not it's appropriate.

Lhurgyof
2010-09-30, 02:52 PM
Ok, guys. We've been derailed pretty hard, {Scrubbed}

But anyways, worst homebrew? The Mary-Sue. Although, it is obviously just a joke.

Vaynor
2010-09-30, 03:02 PM
The Red Towel: Thread locked. This thread is unnecessarily hostile and mean-spirited, and I don't see this topic continuing in any other manner.