PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Homebrew Theory: The Philosophy of Creation [Updated 4/13/2011]



Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-01, 11:06 AM
3.5 Homebrew Theory: The Philosophy of Creation
by Djinn in Tonic

*****

Introduction

It's back! This time, I'm going to finish the damn thing, as I've gotten a lot of recent interest in seeing it completed. For those who haven't seen this before, welcome to my treatise on the theory and practice of homebrew in D&D 3.5. Many of these concepts will also stretch over into Pathfinder, 3.0, 4e, d20r, and similar systems, so if you don't play 3.5 but still love to homebrew, you may find something of use here.

First, let me begin by saying that nothing in this guide is set in stone. I'm no expert (though I give a good account of myself). There are better and brighter homebrewers out there, and many who I wouldn't dare to list myself amongst for fear of being completely eclipsed. So don't think that I'm preaching something mandatory; feel free to take or leave what you read here.

What I am offering is an insight into the philosophy with which I approach D&D 3.5 homebrew. Over the years I've seen numerous "how-to" articles on homebrewing balance and class formatting, but I have yet to encounter anything that actually discusses the theory and practice of homebrewing within the 3.5 system as it stands today. As a result, I tend to see a lot of homebrewed creations that, while they show a high level of technical and mechanical competence, nonetheless fail to mesh with the system. This treatise is my attempt to put my thoughts on homebrew creation down for others to see and, hopefully, to learn from.

I'd also love to hear your input on these thoughts, as well as suggestions for things to add at a later date. By all means offer comments, criticism, critique, and let me know if I'm missing anything or if you have any thoughts or input I might want to include. And keep an eye on this spot...more will be coming on a regular basis.

-The Djinn



*****


Disclaimer

I mentioned it before, but it bears repeating: the following article contains my own thoughts and theories about design, and is intended to provide some insight into only one of the many design philosophies out there. It is meant to inspire and to provoke thought and reflection, but it is not meant imply that things must be done using my methods. Although it may occasionally seem that way due to my writing style, please keep in mind that these are opinions. Good opinions with basis in several years experience with homebrew, yes (or so I think), but, nevertheless, opinions. Keep them in mind, perhaps, but don’t think you have to take them to heart at all times.

Also note that homebrewing is a tricky process at the best of times, as a homebrew creation is, at its core, an attempt to convince multiple people (at least a player and a DM) that the rules it proposes are a balanced and useful addition to a game. The more people will be viewing and critiquing the creation, the harder agreement is to reach, and, as such, people have different standards to which they judge homebrew from both a conceptual and a mechanical angle. The thoughts and methods detailed below have worked for me and have generally produced work enjoyed by the online communities that I share my creations with, but that does not mean that everyone will meet success in peer critique by following these methods.


*****


Table of Contents

Post 1
Conceptualization: What Am I Making?
Sub-Systems: A Brief Overview
A Bit About Balance
Reflavoring
Alterations & Rewrites
Alternate Class Features & Racial Substitution Levels
Base Classes


*****


Conceptualization: What do I Really Want?

The first step to homebrewing is to make sure you really have to do it. Step back, envision your concept, and see how you could make it work with existing material. If you can't find something that works perfectly, try to find the easiest way to get what you want (and still have fun homebrewing): it'll save you time in the long run, and potentially focus any homebrewing you actually have to do to make your dream a reality.

Think carefully when deciding where best to fit your creation, as a well thought out homebrew is almost invariably better than one created on the spur of the moment. If something just isn't coming together, back off and look at it again. Maybe you're trying to make the wrong sort of thing. Maybe your class is better as a series of feats, or your alternate class feature could really just be a spell. What this basically comes down to is choosing the right sub-system. I'm throwing the term at you out of the blue, but I'll talk more about it in the next section. One thing to remember is that there's no right or wrong decision when it comes to selecting the sub-system your homebrew is going to use: some are just easier or more elegant than others. Play around with your idea, and find the right one for you.

Later in this article I'll be demonstrating how to fit concepts to a number of different sub-systems, but, for now, we'll just dive in and learn a bit about the systems behind D&D and how we can use them.



*****


Sub-Systems: A Brief Overview

So, now that I'm thrown the term at you, let's actually talk about sub-systems. A sub-system is a term I'll be using to refer to any individual system within D&D 3.5. These sub-systems are groupings of rules that share specific qualities across the group: base classes, feats, spells, martial disciplines, and so forth. Each of these sub-systems follows its own specific rules, and for your homebrew to mesh well with the game as a whole, it must also remain firmly grounded in its own sub-system (or, alternatively, develop its own sub-system through the use of a new mechanic).

I'll be covering the following sub-systems within this article:
Reflavoring
Alterations & Rewrites
Alternate Class Features & Racial Substitution Levels
Base Classes
Prestige Classes
Martial Disciplines
Spells & Things
Feats
Monsters
Races
Templates
Magic Items
Creating Your Own Sub-System



*****


Sidenote: A Bit About Balance

Before we delve into the different sub-systems, we must discuss the concept of balance.

Balance is possibly the single hardest element of homebrew to explain, but without it your creation is just a good idea floating in a sea of poor design. Developing a good eye for balance is really something you have to practice: listen to critique from more experienced designers, test your creations, get a lot of stuff out there, and take criticism in stride (and learn from it). You’ll find you begin to figure out when something is balanced and when something isn’t, although it may take a while.

Still, some things bear mentioning. The end goal of balancing is the following: A player should view your creation as a choice of equal potential to the other choices available within the same sub-system and at the same level. This means you should aim (in general) to balance the class against your ordinary player playing with a solid but not overpowered class, not against something that a devoted powergamer would whip up using a Wizard and some rules exploits. Balancing against the former makes your class a choice among other choices: balancing against the latter means that players will be hard pressed to find any advantage to not taking your class.

The following are common balance mistakes that I often see, and would like to address.

But the Numbers Go Up: Nine times out of ten, a mere upwards numerical progression makes for an underwhelming creation. It's for this reason that feats like Weapon Focus are often overlooked: a +1 bonus rarely makes the cut. Even things like Improved Disarm at least add a kicker to the bonus (in this case, you can't be disarmed on a failed attempt). If you find your creation boils down to a few little increases on already existing abilities, but doesn't really add anything new or unique (a staff-master class that adds to AC, attack rolls, reach, and damage, for instance, but doesn't really learn any interesting techniques or develop unique class features), you're selling yourself short. Think up some creative ways to explore your topic: most players would rather have a fun new ability or an interesting variation on an existing one than a mere +2 damage bonus.

Crippling Negatives: If your creation has a tremendous amount of power, you balance it by making it available at a higher level, not by adding huge penalties to other aspects of the creation. This technique is the epitome of poor design: it grants incredible power to those willing to eat large penalties in areas which might not matter to them, while making the creation incredibly unappealing to anyone not wanting to min-max (perfect one area of a character’s mechanical strengths at the expense of others) to this extent. Rather than do this, either raise the level at which the choice becomes available, or lower the overall power of the creation.

It's So Hard to Do: If a combo takes an exact set of circumstances, that doesn't mean it's balanced. The Assassin's (Dungeon Master's Guide) Death Attack is a bit weak, but that's because it takes 3 rounds of study to make work. If it was on every sneak attack, that would be to strong. In this case, losing actions is what balances it out. If it relied on getting a sneak attack on a flat-footed target in the dark, for example, you can be sure that players will find all the ways possible to make that happen at least 50% of the time. Thus, don't think that your incredible ability is balanced because the circumstances are specific: balance the ability for the level, and add circumstances only if they fit.

One-Trick Pony: Being insanely good at one thing but incompetent at others is not balanced. Don’t make a creation that is the only possible choice for a specialist in that area: a prestige class devoted to archery should make a character a better archer, but shouldn’t make him or her so much better that it becomes the only choice. Having a signature trick is fine. Hell, you should even become pretty damn good at it. However, making that single trick into an insanely powerful tool with the justification that “it’s the only thing you can do” is not good design. After all, if your full attack routine with a bow can kill 95% of foes in the first round of combat, why would you ever want anything else?

Playing Hard to Get: So your creation is really rare, has heavy prerequisites, or is just hard to qualify for. Fine. But don't use that as an excuse to dish out tremendous abilities. You can use this sparingly (difficult classes are often stronger), but don't rely on it to much. A little bit of power here and there if fine, but it's not a green-light to toss out excess power. Remember to balance based on level, as well as on requirements. Balancing by level should always take precedence.

There are more, obviously, but an full discussion on balance in D&D 3.5 would take more time than I care to spend. Feel free to contact me with any questions, or suggestions of things to add to this portion of the article.



*****


Reflavoring

Reflavoring isn't really a sub-system, but it bears mentioning anyway. The simplest option available to you is to simply alter the flavor of existing material to suit your tastes. There's no real rhyme or reason behind this, other than that you should try to have it make a bit of sense: magic missile might manifest as a clap of thunder and a shock of phantom lightning, but it won't manifest as Kord himself descending to smack the target upside the head (unless you're playing a very lighthearted game). Keep your reflavoring within reason, and within the context of the ability itself.

The big advantages to reflavoring are twofold. Firstly, it's incredibly easy, and, with a bit of creativity, can actually prove surprisingly versatile. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it gets you thinking about the different ways to interpret a mechanical ability from a flavor perspective, which can prove invaluable when thinking up class features or bending an existing creation to fit a somewhat unusual concept.

I've found that nine times out of ten reflavoring can substitute for any given concept a player can come up with. Often homebrewing a solution is a better method (or at least more fun), but you should always at least consider reflavoring as a theoretical exercise when confronted with a problem. If you look at all the possible approaches, you'll get a better understanding of how mechanics and flavor can mix, which is one of the most important things a homebrewer can learn. The same class feature can usually work for dozens, if not hundred, of different classes. All you need is some reflavoring and a bit of context.

Examples
Let's take the Inferno Blast martial maneuver (Tome of Battle), and, just for fun, an elephant (Monster Manual 1 & SRD) with the Fire Elemental template (Manual of the Planes) on it.

Example 1-1: A Change of Perspective
Inferno Blast is pretty easy. The maneuver itself involves sending an explosion of flame through your own weapon, supposedly as a result of some burning inner ki energy. Personally, I find this a little far-fetched for some characters. This could easily become a truly magical effect for a warrior/mage hybrid, or my character striking the ground with such force that the fires within the earth rise up out of the hole, or (my personal favorite) a particularly devout warrior of Pelor calling down the fist of the sun god to smite his foes. I might change the name to Pelor's Burning Judgment, just so that what I say out of character matches the effect I want in character. Either way, the technique still deals 100 points of damage across a wide area, and I just saved myself a bit of work by adapting something that already exists.

Example 1-2: An Elephant!?
The elephant is a favorite example of mine, as I discovered it from firsthand experience. A DM of mine once confronted my party with a burning lion-beast the size of a small house. It charged through our ranks, dealt colossal damage, and bowled through fortifications with relative ease. We were terrified of it, as none of us had any idea what we were up against, or what obscure sourcebook he had pulled it out of. When he revealed later that it was simply an elephant with the fire elemental template on it, we were stunned. He had changed the looks and reflavored the stamp and gore attacks to be claws and teeth, but that was all. The charging through fortifications part was merely storytelling used to make the encounter more menacing and to spice up the encounter a bit. It remained one of the most frightening and flavorful fights of the entire campaign, largely because we were convinced that it was some horrible monster.

Final Thoughts
Used right, reflavoring saves you a ton of work, and can even make your players, party, or even DM sit up and take interest. Just like you might add personal touches to your Wizard's spells (maybe your fireballs are green, or your magic missile is shaped like the head of a dragon), you can add your own touch to any existing mechanic. Done right, it will seem like something brand new.



*****


Alterations & Rewrites

Like reflavoring, alterations aren't really a sub-system (with the exception of alternate class features, discussed below), but they are still important enough to merit a look. An alteration is when you take an existing mechanic and tweak it slightly to fit your needs. Balance is pretty important here: a Rogue who trades evasion for the Barbarian's Rage progression isn't balanced, but just the first level of Rage 1-3 times per day might be. In short, when rewriting with an intent to preserve a given power level, always trade abilities for other abilities of equal power. DMs have a little more leeway with the balance (since they can fudge the numbers if things go south), but when an alteration reaches player hands it must be carefully considered.

There are many reasons for alteration. Sometimes a feature doesn't fit an intended character or world, and sometimes a DM doesn't want a particular ability in his or her game. Occasionally two players play the same class and wish to see some differentiation between the two characters, and sometimes it's just a matter of a player being bored of the normal options. These are good reasons for alteration.

Bad reasons for alterations are also plentiful: a player may try to combine features to access a powerful prestige class or feat earlier than intended, or to get a potent combination of abilities on his or her sheet. As a player, avoid these reasons. As a DM, keep an eye out for potential abuse.

A rewrite is when you taken an existing mechanic and, rather than tweaking it slightly, you rewrite it to better fit it's intended goal. This may involve minor additions or removals, a complete revision of the feat along similar lines (replacing Two-Weapon Fighting with, for example, the ability to make two attacks at your full bonus as a standard action), or a slight change in the exact wording: the point is that you're merely changing the exact specifics, not inventing something completely new. Perhaps an ability doesn't work as intended, or you feel a certain feat is to powerful or to weak. Either way, you have a basis for your creation, from which you do not deviate too much.

Alteration and rewrites are technically a form of homebrew, but are usually on a small enough scale to not really qualify. Changing a spell list, combining Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, or granting the Monk a skirmish progression isn't a complete remaking of anything, and may not even qualify as an alternate feature (discussed below). Yet these small changes happen frequently enough that you should know how to handle them: the trick is practice, and getting input from others. Remember never to sacrifice something of greater or lesser value than what you're gaining, unless you're intentionally trying to improve or reduce the power of the mechanic you're altering.

In general, if your homebrew doesn't stray too far from the source mechanic (not source flavor: it must specifically stay within the mechanical realm of the original mechanic) and doesn't spread into another sub-system, it should be considered an alteration or a rewrite. After all, you're heavily grounding your work in an existing framework, not building one of your own. If, however, your rewrite of the Druid base class (for example) becomes a prestige class, a series of feats, or anything partaking of another sub-system, you're in the realm of homebrew.

Examples
Let's take the Desert Wind martial discipline (Tome of Battle), the Sai (Player's Handbook & SRD), the Toughness feat (Player's Handbook & SRD), and the flaming elephant mentioned in the previous example.

Example 2-1: Winds of Change
The Desert Wind discipline is really simple to tweak: I could rename it Frigid Wind and change all the damage to Cold damage, or Rushing Storm and do the same with electricity. Alternatively, I could rename it Rising Phoenix, cut all the non-fire related maneuvers, and give it some of the healing maneuvers from Devoted Spirit. Provided I keep the power of the swapped maneuvers approximately the same (not just adding them haphazardly), my result should be fairly reliable. The options are limited only by my imagination, and my sense of balance.

Example 2-2: Improving the Sai
The Sai is an interesting case, as it's quite weak for an exotic weapon (and thus a feat). An alteration in this case would be directed at making the weapon a stronger choice for a player to select: this alteration will increase the power of an under-used weapon in an attempt to make it worth the feat. Looking at the Sai, it's meant to be a disarming weapon, but a +4 bonus only negates the -4 penalty a light weapon grants. So, keeping the base stats (light weapon, 1d4 damage, 20/x2), I might do the following: A Sai grants +2 bonus to disarm attempts, and does not suffer the normal penalty bestowed by using a light weapon on disarm attempts. Additionally, wielding a Sai grants the wielder a +1 untyped bonus to armor class. This gives me a weapon most likely worth a feat, without being incredibly strong.

Example 2-3: Toughness v2.0
The same is true for Toughness: it's decent (but not good) at it's level, and weak thereafter. As both Toughness and its older brother Improved Toughness are weak feats, a strong alteration would be combining them together, perhaps with a bit more of a kick. The resulting alteration might be something like this: Toughness: You gain +3 hit points, plus an additional +1 hit point per hit die you possess. Additionally, you gain a +1 bonus on Fortitude saving throws. It's not overpowered (Power Attack might still be a better option), but it's suddenly much more appealing. I didn't really make something new, but I tweaked what was already there to make it more balanced with regards to the game as a whole. Had I completely rewritten it (DR 1/-, increasing by +1/- every 3 levels) so that it was no longer recognizable as Toughness, that would be homebrewing a feat. As it stands, I merely altered the existing mechanic.

Example 2-4: An Elephant (Again)
Finally, we'll bring up the elephant once more. I could take the fire elemental elephant and alter it slightly (using DM alteration balance to not remove anything) to create a truly unique encounter for a stronger party. Maybe I give it an aura of flame, allow it to cast fireball, or give it a breath weapon. Maybe it can disintegrate into flame, allowing it to pass through small areas, or causing weapons to treat it as incorporeal. Maybe is just has spell resistance. Any way I look at it, I'm not altering that much, nor am I doing all the work of creating a new monster: I'm just taking what's there and giving it a once-over to match my concept. Which, really, is what alteration and rewriting comes down to.

Final Thoughts
Alterations and rewrites require a good amount of practice, as they're really entirely at the homebrewers discretion. If you're just starting out, stick to simple alterations and rewrites, and use things like alternate class features instead, if possible (most alterations can be done with alternate class features), as the more defined a sub-system is, the easier it is to balance (usually). Still, both alterations and rewrites have their place, and it will do you well to practice them and gather input and critique from your fellow homebrewers.


*****


Alternate Class Features & Racial Substitution Levels

Alternate class features and racial substitution levels are very conceptually close to alterations and rewrites, but they have the distinction of occupying a specific sub-system within the base class system. Both alternate class features and racial substitution levels replace abilities normally gained through base classes, and function on a trade mechanic: sacrificing one feature of a class in exchange for another.

Alternate class features usually sacrifice either a constantly improving ability for an equal improving ability (trading Evasion and Improved Evasion for Mettle and Improved Mettle, for example), a one-time ability for a one-time ability (trading Flurry of Blows for the ability to make a single, more powerful attack), or delay an improving ability to gain another ability (trading Evasion for Mettle, and then gaining Evasion when you would normally have gotten Improved Evasion). Sometimes you are offered a choice each time an option arises: trading your daily use of Rage for some other benefit, so that you could mix and match between X uses of Rage and Y uses of the second ability, where X + Y is equal to the number of times you would have normally been able to use Rage.

Racial substitution levels are extraordinarily similar to alternate class features (largely because they are alternate class features), but are unique to a specific race. They tend to come in sets of three, although this is really just a tradition that doesn't need to be followed. For all practical purposes, they are alternate class features, and should be considered as such.

Alternate class features rarely have prerequisites, although this is not an absolute (racial substitution levels, for example, obviously require a racial requirement). If you wish to add requirements to your creation, by all means do so. Such requirements should be easy to meet: a single feat or pair of feats, an alignment, a choice of spell, or other simple prerequisite should be as complex as you get.

The purpose of an alternate class feature is simple: you should make an alternate class feature when you have a single ability that you wish to add to a class. This ability shouldn't redefine the role of the class, but rather offer options for someone who wishes to take the class. The classic example is the Whirling Frenzy Barbarian, a barbarian who becomes inhumanly fast and evasive during a rage, instead of becoming strong and durable. To further that, you might also give options to sacrifice Damage Reduction for Evasion at 7th level and Improved Evasion at 13th level, allowing your character or player to becomes even more agile, if he or she wishes.

To summarize, use an alternate class feature if your concept involves a minor differentiation from the base class, or if you wish to gain a certain ability you might not otherwise be able to possess. Do not use alternate class features to rewrite large portions of a class, or to completely change the concept or mechanics of a class.

Format: Alternate Class Feature

Name:
Class/Classes:
Requirements:
Replaces:
Level:
Benefit:

Copy-Paste Formatting
Name:
Class/Classes:
Requirements:
Replaces:
Level:
Benefit:

Examples

Name: War Wizard Training
Class/Classes: Wizard
Requirements: Proficiency in at least one martial weapon.
Replaces: Bonus Feat (not including Scribe Scroll)
Level: 5, 10, 15, and/or 20
Benefit: Any time you would gain a bonus feat granted by the Wizard class (not including Scribe Scroll), you may instead opt to select War Wizard Training. If you do, you gain a permanent +2 bonus to all attack rolls and you may select a single feat from the list of Fighter Bonus Feats (provided you meet the requirements for the selected feat). You may take War Wizard training on up to four separate occasions, and the bonus to attack rolls stacks with itself (up to a total bonus of +8 for selecting War Wizard Training four times).

Name: Thundering Yowl [Racial Substitution]
Class/Classes: Barbarian
Requirements: Shifter
Replaces: Trap Sense
Level: 3
Benefit: You do not gain Trap Sense. Instead, you gain Thundering Yowl. Once per round as a swift action you may choose to deal 3 points of Sonic damage to all creatures within 10 feet of you. Each time your Trap Sense bonus would improve, you instead deal an additional 2 points of Sonic damage with this ability. You may only use Thundering Yowl when Raging. Creatures unable to hear do not take damage from this ability.

Name: Quick to Anger [Racial Substitution]
Class/Classes: Barbarian
Requirements: Orc or Half-Orc
Replaces: Trap Sense
Level: 3
Benefit: You gain Trap Sense later than usual. At 3rd level, you may enter your Rage as an immediate action. At 6th level, you gain Trap Sense +1 instead of Trap Sense +2. Your Trap Sense improves by +1 every three levels beyond 6th level.

Name: Primal Reflexes
Class/Classes: Barbarian
Requirements: None
Replaces: Damage Reduction
Level: 7
Benefit: You do not gain Damage Reduction. At 7th level, you gain Evasion and a +1 bonus to Reflex saves. You gain an additional +1 bonus to Reflex saves at 10th level, and every three levels beyond 10th level. At 13th level, you also gain Improved Evasion.


Examples
Let's take the following concepts: a Monk with the ability to enter a zen trance that improves his combat ability, an Elven sorcerer with strong connections to the Fey, and a Barbarian who takes the phrase “fiery temper” literally.

Example 3-1: The Zen Monk
A good basis for a zen trance mechanic can be found in the Barbarian's Rage ability, so I'll use that as a starting point (although I could create something new). I'd like it to be around at 1st level, but I'd also like to have it improve, so I can't just cut the bonus feat or Flurry of Blows and call it a day. Losing a combination of Flurry of Blows, Greater Flurry, and Slow Fall allows me more room to homebrew. The choice is now between a reliable full attack routine and a reliable utility power, or a stronger yet limited buff ability. I might end up with something like this:
Name: Zen Trance
Class/Classes: Monk
Requirements: None
Replaces: Flurry of Blows, Greater Flurry, Slow Fall
Level: 1
Benefit: You do not gain Flurry of Blows, Greater Flurry, or Slow Fall. Instead, once per day, a 1st level Monk may enter a Zen Trance. While in a Zen Trance, she gains a +4 untyped bonus to her Wisdom score, adds her Wisdom modifier to her damage with unarmed attacks, and may use her Wisdom modifier in place of her Strength modifier on all unarmed attack rolls. Additionally, while in a Zen Trance, she gains a +4 bonus to saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and abilities. A Zen Trance lasts a number of rounds equal to 3 + the Monk's Wisdom modifier (including the +4 bonus). At 11th level the benefits improve to a +6 bonus to her Wisdom score and a +6 bonus to saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and abilities. At 20th level, the benefits improve to a +8 bonus to her Wisdom score and immunity to all mind-affecting spells and abilities.

At 4th level and every four levels beyond 4th level, a Monk gains an additional daily use of this ability.
The end result is clearly a Monk, although it has a new mechanic integrated into the class. It doesn't change the role of the Monk, or result in a character with a set of abilities completely different from normal: having a Monk along still means you've got a reliable unarmed striker, and the inclusion of the new ability merely helps to take that concept in a slightly different direction. It's also still a choice: the Zen Trance variant isn't something that every Monk will want to take.

Example 3-2: The Fey Sorcerer
Alternate features for Sorcerers are always difficult, as the only things you can really tinker with are the familiar, the spells known, and the spells per day. Regardless, once you get the hang of the value of spell levels, this gives you a ton of options. For now, however, we'll keep it simple: we'll deal only with the familiar. The familiar isn't that powerful an option, so we can't make our alternate power that much stronger. We do want to emphasize a Fey connection though, which means dealing with things like the Fey subtype, invisibility, enchantment and illusion spells, and the like. Something like this might suffice:
Name: Fey Magic
Class/Classes: Sorcerer
Requirements: Elf, Half-Elf, or Human
Replaces: Summon Familiar
Level: 1
Benefit: You do not gain a familiar. Instead, upon gaining access to each new spell level, you may select a single Enchantment or Illusion spell you know of that level. Whenever you cast one of the selected spells, increase the spell's DC (if any) by +1. Additionally, you are treated as a Fey creature in addition to your normal creature type for the purposes of spells and abilities.
It's not particularly powerful: at most, it's a partial type change and a +1 bonus to the DC of 10 spells (one of each level). That said, it also doesn't really change what the Sorcerer is, and it allows a character to grab a little bit of Fey flavor if he or she desires.

Example 3-3: The Burning Berserker
Finally, we'll deal with a higher level alternate class feature. I want a bit of power here, so I'll pick something that's fairly useful to replace: Tireless Rage. As Tireless Rage allows a Barbarian to avoid the penalties of his Rage ability, I can sneak a good bit of power in, as a Barbarian with this ability will have to pay the price for the use of this ability. I'm interested in the fire subtype, but that alone won't make an appropriately balanced power, as that also comes with some large disadvantages. I might settle on this:
Name: Raging Inferno
Class/Classes: Barbarian
Requirements: None
Replaces: Tireless Rage
Level: 17
Benefit: You do not gain the Tireless Rage ability. Instead, whenever you enter a Rage, you gain the Fire subtype and your melee and unarmed attacks deal an additional 3d6 points of fire damage. Additionally, all enemies who being their turn within 10 feet of you must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ your class level + your Constitution modifier) or be fatigued for 1 minute.
This one might be a bit strong, but the fact that you have to rest after the encounter (or be fatigued partway through the encounter probably balances it pretty close to the original. It's also at a high enough level that the power difference won't be that noticeable. Note that it is acceptable to overlook this here, as the Barbarian isn't the strongest of classes. I wouldn't be as lenient when dealing with something already exceptionally powerful, such as the Wizard or the Druid.

Final Thoughts
Alternate class features are a great way to begin homebrewing, as they're simple to make and easy for others to understand and critique. They'll help you gain an eye for balance, and are quite simple to incorporate into existing classes: with a bit of effort, you can make enough options to keep all your players happy. As a homebrewer myself, I wholeheartedly endorse alternate class features as a great homebrewing exercise, and as an effective finished product in and of themselves. Definitely put these on your list of things to try.



*****


Base Classes

A base class is a twenty-level class accessible at level one, and that serves to define your character’s abilities and his or her role in the world. From the martial strength of a Fighter to the world-shattering magicks of a Wizard or Cleric, a base class gives your character a foundation upon which to build both a convincing personality and a mechanically functional character.

This means that the primary goal of a base class is to provide this foundation. In order to act as a framework for mechanical purposes and role-playing purposes, such a foundation must be both mechanically solid and conceptually mutable, as this achieves the optimum balance: numerous character concepts can be realized with the class in question (and these numerous concepts can later be refined with prestige classes, feats, and other sub-systems). While some base classes sacrifice the mutable concept aspect (Warlock, Paladin, Soulknife, Bard, Monk, and Dragon Shaman, among others), these classes, as a general rule, are more difficult to adapt to a wide array of character concepts without significant reflavoring and some minor alteration. This isn’t necessarily bad design (although many of the aforementioned classes fail on a mechanical level), but it occasionally results in losing what I consider one of the most important things in homebrew design: Freedom of Choice. We’ll discuss this more in-depth later in this section.

For this discussion I’ll be using a few terms that could bear explanation. A “tight concept” is a focused and specific conceptualization: an example might be something like “a psychic warrior who fights with a blade of conjured mental energy.” A “broad concept” will be a conceptualization that fills a role or niche without being exactly specific as to the manner in which it is filled. For example, the following would be a broad interpretation of the previous example: “a warrior who melds psychic combat with martial skill.” The difference may seem small, but, when we move on to execution, a tight concept can be constraining to creativity, and can often lead to an awkward class. At its worst, a broad concept is generic but mutable, but, in my mind, generic and mutable is better than unique but unyielding…at least where base classes are concerned. This is not to say that a tight concept is a bad concept: tight concepts have their place in other sub-systems (primarily feats, alternate class features, spells, maneuvers, prestige classes), as well as in user-selected features of base classes, and can even work as base classes under the right circumstances. But, before I get ahead of myself, let’s move on to discussing step one in the process of creating a base class: Concept.

Concept
For this discussion, I’ll be using a few terms that could bear explanation. A “tight concept” is a focused and specific conceptualization: an example might be something like “a psychic warrior who fights with a blade of conjured mental energy.” A “broad concept” will be a conceptualization that fills a role or niche without being exactly specific as to the manner in which it is filled. For example, the following would be a broad interpretation of the previous example: “a warrior who melds psychic combat with martial skill.” The difference may seem small, but, when we move on to execution, a tight concept can be constraining to creativity, and can often lead to an awkward class. At its worst, a broad concept is generic but mutable, but, in my mind, generic and mutable is better than unique but unyielding…at least where base classes are concerned. This is not to say that a tight concept is a bad concept: tight concepts have their place in other sub-systems (primarily feats, alternate class features, spells, maneuvers, prestige classes), as well as in user-selected features of base classes, and can even work as base classes under the right circumstances.

The reason that a broad concept is better for creating a base class is simple: since a base class is a foundation upon which the character is built, it should provide an opportunity to actually create a character rather than forcing a direction upon that character or, worse, being so narrow in concept that it provides little incentive to take the class for more than a few levels. A prime example of a base class that fails on a conceptual level is the Soulknife. Those of you familiar with the class may have noticed that I referenced it in the preceding paragraph, but, for those of you unaware of it, the Soulknife is a class from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and is available online as part of the Hypertext System Reference Document (http://www.d20srd.org/). The Soulknife itself can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm), and I'd recommend reading through it if you haven't already, so you can better follow along in this section.

The Soulknife is a spin on a fairly common concept in supernatural stories: a blade or other weapon that is a manifestation of the wielder's soul. It's a pretty cool idea, and has the potential to add quite a bit of flair to a character. Sounds great, right?

Not so fast. While the idea is conceptually awesome, there's a serious impediment if we're thinking of making a base class: there's almost nothing to work with. The concept, as presented, is that of a psychic warrior who fights with a blade of conjured mental energy. While this is deliciously flavor-filled, the concept is married to the idea of this blade of mental energy, which, in turn, will focus our class specifically towards that one element. Read through the class again, and this time see how many of the class features deal with the weapon you conjure and only the weapon you conjure. If the answer you came up with it "all of them," then you're right. This means that, over twenty levels of character growth, you have designed a class that pours every single feature it gets into a single gimmick which, in this case, is something that you can purchase with your character's wealth! Compare this to the Wizard, who gets dozens of interesting new ways to mess up his enemies or make his life easier over the course of the same twenty levels. The Wizard is a class that rewards players with new abilities and new options that fit a broad concept (one of a studious magic-user) as you advance in the class, whereas the Soulknife, by contrast, has a narrow enough concept that there is little room for innovation. This makes it fall under the "One-Trick Pony" design flaw mentioned at the beginning of this article. We'll discuss how we could fix this in a moment, but let's look at another example of poor base class concept first: the Monk.

The Monk is an example of another common conceptualization mistake. Rather than a very narrow mechanical concept (basing a class around the mindblade, as the Soulknife does), the Monk has an incredibly narrow flavor concept. It is a lawful, zen-like, oriental-themed martial artist with a focus on supernatural abilities. Awesome? Yes. A good foundation for a base class? Not really. It constrains the player by offering little in the way of player choice, while also forcing a highly specific sort of flavor on the character in question. Since a base class should offer a direction with lots of room to grow, and the Monk instead shoe-horns a player down a specific, pre-determined path, it does not meet the criteria for a good base class.

Author's Note: The above examples may seem rather contrived in a discussion of homebrew, as a good counter-argument to my homebrew theories is that you can homebrew anything. It's a valid point: why not make a highly specific class for a character to take from levels 1-20? Some people do, and I'm not here to tell them they shouldn't, or that it doesn't work. That being said, the concept of prestige classes, feats, and the myriad of other customization options that exist in 3.5 exist for a reason. Their sole purpose is to focus a character down a player-selected path, and to aid in creating a unique and effective end result. Trying to cram all of that individuality into a base class seems, to me, to run contrary to everything the system stands for. As such, I'm a proponent of more general base classes, focused by player-selected options later in the game.

These conceptual mistakes are usually easy to circumvent. The Monk and Soulknife, while not suited in their current for to the base class sub-system, could both function excellent as feats, martial disciplines, prestige classes, or alternate class features. A single feat and some reflavoring could introduce the Diamond Mind and Shadow Hand Swordsage who fights with a blade of conjured energy, which is really just a feat making it so that the weapon that would normally be purchased with his character wealth is instead a weapon forged from his soul, which he can conjure and dismiss at will. A second feat might allow him to shift the forms of such a weapon. Since the Soulknife is also a weak class, it's entirely possible that, in exchange for a feat or two, the entire weapon progression could be tacked on the Fighter class, or the Rogue class. Likewise, the Monk could be a prestige class for unarmed Swordsages, imbuing the class with more oriental flavor and more ki powered abilities, or even a feat chain that grants improving inner power channeled through a fighter's (or other vaguely martial class's) body.

Alternatively...

...to be continued.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-01, 11:07 AM
--Reserved for future use--

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-01, 11:09 AM
--Reserved for future use 2--

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-01, 11:10 AM
--Reserved for future use 3--

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-01, 11:11 AM
--Reserved for future use 4--

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-01, 11:12 AM
--Reserved for future use 5--

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-01, 11:14 AM
Posting may now begin.

blackmage
2011-03-01, 11:20 AM
Hallelujah!

I read your previous posting and it really had an impact on me. Count me as another grateful student :smallsmile:

Adamantrue
2011-03-02, 11:16 AM
This is pretty neat. Its a pleasant read, and can help people organize (or reorganize) their work. It also has some neat ideas.

There should be at least a mention on Tiers. A lot of people are fond of Fighter, Monk, or Paladin "Fixes", but they don't take into account people that enjoy Lower-Tier play, and just want a minor bump (or even just a flavor change) instead of a turbocharged variant. This is especially true in the case of people that want feedback on, say, a Monk variant, and the only feedback they receive is "play an Unarmed Swordsage." On the flip side, some people like some Classes conceptually, but feel the need to give them boosts into Tier 3, 2, or even 1.

You plan on including any sorts of resources, such as helpful links? The Class Feature Equivalencies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58667), for example, could be handy framework for brewing Alternate Class Features, at least as far as a starting point goes.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-02, 01:00 PM
I read your previous posting and it really had an impact on me. Count me as another grateful student :smallsmile:

Always glad to know I helped in some way. I'll have to take a look at some of your work. :smallbiggrin:


This is pretty neat. Its a pleasant read, and can help people organize (or reorganize) their work. It also has some neat ideas.

Gracias. :smallredface:


There should be at least a mention on Tiers. A lot of people are fond of Fighter, Monk, or Paladin "Fixes", but they don't take into account people that enjoy Lower-Tier play, and just want a minor bump (or even just a flavor change) instead of a turbocharged variant. This is especially true in the case of people that want feedback on, say, a Monk variant, and the only feedback they receive is "play an Unarmed Swordsage." On the flip side, some people like some Classes conceptually, but feel the need to give them boosts into Tier 3, 2, or even 1.

A good point. It'll probably come up later in the Base Class section, as that's where most of the "Tier" debate comes into play.


You plan on including any sorts of resources, such as helpful links? The Class Feature Equivalencies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58667), for example, could be handy framework for brewing Alternate Class Features, at least as far as a starting point goes.

I do indeed plan on a links/reference section, and that thread (which I hadn't previously known about) would be excellent. Thanks for the heads up!

blackmage
2011-03-02, 01:16 PM
Always glad to know I helped in some way. I'll have to take a look at some of your work. :smallbiggrin:

I'll need to FINISH something then. All I've posted so far is a tiny prestige class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158166) and a few (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187348) feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180741). Though I do think they're good ones.

Mulletmanalive
2011-03-02, 02:03 PM
I've just finished reading the concept portion of the base classes thing and i'm going to be honest, the language seems to have gotten away with you. From my two read-throughs, it seems like you really need to go back and check if "concept" is what you're talking about because by the end of it, you're sounding like anything with what i would call a concept beyond "i hit things" is bad.

You actually state that a narrow concept cannot be a strong concept but broader and more dilute ones are by normal use of the term, weaker and less cohesive concepts than narrow ones. Yes, I've done creative writing and descriptive writing classes, I do know this much.

I understand the idea that a core base class should be adaptable and specificity should be applied in ACFs, not that i specifically agree with it, but the way you've written that doesn't put that across well at all.

You've also not allowed for the fact that the paladin is a base class primarily because people like to have some mechanical backup for their concept from day one, which you wouldn't have as a reskinned fighter [though you'd have a little of as a Crusader]

Also, [I know you've stated that you have strong opinions but] there's an edge of "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong and thus, stupid" edging in, which has the potential for this to end up with a FrankTrollman level of venom and the divisive effects his writing style has had in other places.

Now, onto execution...

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-02, 02:20 PM
I've just finished reading the concept portion of the base classes thing and i'm going to be honest, the language seems to have gotten away with you. From my two read-throughs, it seems like you really need to go back and check if "concept" is what you're talking about because by the end of it, you're sounding like anything with what i would call a concept beyond "i hit things" is bad.

You actually state that a narrow concept cannot be a strong concept but broader and more dilute ones are by normal use of the term, weaker and less cohesive concepts than narrow ones. Yes, I've done creative writing and descriptive writing classes, I do know this much.

I understand the idea that a core base class should be adaptable and specificity should be applied in ACFs, not that i specifically agree with it, but the way you've written that doesn't put that across well at all.

You've also not allowed for the fact that the paladin is a base class primarily because people like to have some mechanical backup for their concept from day one, which you wouldn't have as a reskinned fighter [though you'd have a little of as a Crusader]

Also, [I know you've stated that you have strong opinions but] there's an edge of "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong and thus, stupid" edging in, which has the potential for this to end up with a FrankTrollman level of venom and the divisive effects his writing style has had in other places.

Now, onto execution...

I'll do a blanket revision...you have a bunch of good points, and I'll need to consider them. Thanks!

Land Outcast
2011-03-02, 02:27 PM
I've just finished reading the concept portion of the base classes thing and i'm going to be honest, the language seems to have gotten away with you. From my two read-throughs, it seems like you really need to go back and check if "concept" is what you're talking about because by the end of it, you're sounding like anything with what i would call a concept beyond "i hit things" is bad.

You actually state that a narrow concept cannot be a strong concept but broader and more dilute ones are by normal use of the term, weaker and less cohesive concepts than narrow ones. Yes, I've done creative writing and descriptive writing classes, I do know this much.
I'll second this, with a variant...

I actually think the term "concept" is perfectly suited, as in an abstraction which preserves what is common to multiple particular ideas.

What I might (and I mean: might) see as the source of the "problem" is the use of the term "strong".
Strength is associated with cohesion and concentration, therefore it could prove a poor choice to describe the conceptual amplitude of an idea.
Example: "A thing" is an impressively wide concept, almost the epitome of a concept... but I doubt it could be called a "strong" concept (unless we veer into philosophy).

That said, I belive the Djinn implicitly adresses the issue of a too diluted concept when he offers as a good example of conceptualization the following:

“skilled and (possibly) holy warrior whose powers can be flavored as raw martial skill or divine power.”
instead of just saying "armored warrior".

Certainly it wouldn't hurt to make it explicit... but I don't see the "anything with what i would call a concept beyond "i hit things" is bad."

/Just some thoughts...

Adamantrue
2011-03-02, 04:26 PM
Hmm...that's interesting.

Some people are going to have different comfort zones with this sort of thing, so if you are trying to be unbiased (which isn't a requirement, as long as it is acknowledged that you are being biased), that should probably mentioned in this article.

As an example, let's choose "Samurai" as a broad concept. We've seen it handled a number of ways, both official & homebrewed (and with varying degrees of success).

One could take the standard Fighter chassis, maybe with a minor tweak here and there, and play the concept. Perhaps they could go Paladin, or something from ToB, maybe Barbarian depending on how they flavor it. And for them it would work just fine. The OA Samurai is a good example of this.

You could take it up a notch, and start doing more than minor tweaks. I have a Homebrewed set of options to make a Samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176677) that works for me, that requires a Multiclass, new ACFs, new Feats, and even new Equipment. And for me, it works just fine.

Then you can create a whole new Base Class. We could bring up the CW Samurai as an example, but I don't even like mentioning the blasted thing. But you do a search, and you'll find plenty of new Base Classes brewed up on any 3.5 board titled "Samurai" that fit the role, and even take clever approaches at times. And that's also fine.

If I were to be honest from a Rules standpoint, I think the best version of "Samurai" I've seen for the game is the Master Samurai (I believe its called) PrC from Sword and Fist. Making it a Prestige Class, and the way it was handled, has stood out in my mind so well that years later, with details faded in my memory, I still recall how impressed I was by it. My group just tended to avoid PrCs, a preference we still stick with.

So, this is really a debate about the target audience for you homebrewed work (your gaming circle, your forum, your publisher), and the amount of effort you want to put in to make your concept work.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-03, 11:35 AM
As an example, let's choose "Samurai" as a broad concept. We've seen it handled a number of ways, both official & homebrewed (and with varying degrees of success).

One could take the standard Fighter chassis, maybe with a minor tweak here and there, and play the concept. Perhaps they could go Paladin, or something from ToB, maybe Barbarian depending on how they flavor it. And for them it would work just fine. The OA Samurai is a good example of this.

You could take it up a notch, and start doing more than minor tweaks. I have a Homebrewed set of options to make a Samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176677) that works for me, that requires a Multiclass, new ACFs, new Feats, and even new Equipment. And for me, it works just fine.

Then you can create a whole new Base Class. We could bring up the CW Samurai as an example, but I don't even like mentioning the blasted thing. But you do a search, and you'll find plenty of new Base Classes brewed up on any 3.5 board titled "Samurai" that fit the role, and even take clever approaches at times. And that's also fine.

If I were to be honest from a Rules standpoint, I think the best version of "Samurai" I've seen for the game is the Master Samurai (I believe its called) PrC from Sword and Fist. Making it a Prestige Class, and the way it was handled, has stood out in my mind so well that years later, with details faded in my memory, I still recall how impressed I was by it. My group just tended to avoid PrCs, a preference we still stick with.

This is something I intend to discuss after my work with the subsystems. I plan on taking a number of concepts, and showing alternate ways in which they could be created, as well as which form the concept would be the strongest in (in my mind). The Samurai, for example, is strongest as a prestige class, for exactly that sort of reason. This doesn't mean that the others are invalid.

Also, I've scrapped and revised the base class section (only the introduction, at this point), and added a disclaimer. I also fleshed out the reflavoring section a bit, as it was somewhat lacking. Do these changes read better, and are they, thus far, more useful?

Mulletmanalive
2011-03-03, 11:50 AM
Yes, much better. Neither unfair nor neglecting a very strong sense of your personal convictions.

Kallisti
2011-03-09, 12:46 AM
Fantastic! Now maybe we can talk you into finishing the Seidkona of the Iron Bands?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-09, 02:24 AM
Fantastic! Now maybe we can talk you into finishing the Seidkona of the Iron Bands?

Perhaps, but I've got another huge project in the works that I'm rather psyched about, so that's taking precedence.

As for this, it's progressing slowly...the Base Class section is possibly the hardest to write, honestly. But it's coming along.

Adamantrue
2011-03-09, 06:58 PM
Well, no reason that has to be done first, so long as you have a general framework and know what you intend to do. You don't need to complete it in chronological order.

Maybe tackle an easier portion or two first, then come back to it?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-13, 02:00 PM
Well, no reason that has to be done first, so long as you have a general framework and know what you intend to do. You don't need to complete it in chronological order.

While true, there's a lot that the Base Class section will discuss, as it's the first time we're really delving into serious homebrewing.

That said, the concept section (or about half of it) is currently up. Once again, input is appreciated.

Sorry for the long waits, by the way. Once this section is over, I'll be able to move much quicker.

Saph
2011-03-13, 02:51 PM
For this discussion, I’ll be using a few terms that could bear explanation. A “tight concept” is a focused and specific conceptualization: an example might be something like “a psychic warrior who fights with a blade of conjured mental energy.” A “broad concept” will be a conceptualization that fills a role or niche without being exactly specific as to the manner in which it is filled. For example, the following would be a broad interpretation of the previous example: “a warrior who melds psychic combat with martial skill.” The difference may seem small, but, when we move on to execution, a tight concept can be constraining to creativity, and can often lead to an awkward class. At its worst, a broad concept is generic but mutable, but, in my mind, generic and mutable is better than unique but unyielding…at least where base classes are concerned ...

The reason that a broad concept is better for creating a base class is simple ...

While I understand where you're coming from, I disagree with your conclusion that a broad concept = better for base classes. You take the Monk and Soulknife as examples of bad 'narrow concept' classes, which is fair, but there are some extremely good 'narrow concept' classes out there too.

Duskblade: VERY narrow. Duskblades really have only one defining feature: their Channel Spell ability. One Duskblade will look pretty much like another, the only difference being what flavour of damaging touch attack spell they choose to hit you with.
Beguiler: Every Beguiler, pretty much by necessity, is an enchantment/illusion specialist with a trickery focus and very limited damage-dealing capacity. Their Advanced Learning gives them a little variety in spell list, but not much.
Dread Necromancer: Necromancy, necromancy, and more necromancy. Probably the most restrictive capstone ability out there: it turns you into a lich!
Yet all three of these are generally regarded as pretty darn good as base classes go: they're flavourful, have a variety of fun abilities, and are right in the sweet spot regarding power.

I'd go further and say that, particularly with regard to spellcasters, having too broad a concept is just as likely to be a bad thing. If you look at the game-breaker Tier 1 classes, one thing they all have in common is an extraordinarily broad focus, allowing them to do nearly anything. This is good for variety of concept but very bad for game balance. By contrast, the limited-list casters are much easier to balance a game around.

Lord_Gareth
2011-03-13, 02:53 PM
You may also want to put in a section on accepting critique. In particular, if you can rule 0 something in your work easily to fix it, then the creator has no excuse not to fix it themselves.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-13, 03:06 PM
Yet all three of these are generally regarded as pretty darn good as base classes go: they're flavourful, have a variety of fun abilities, and are right in the sweet spot regarding power.

This will be discussed, with those three as specific examples, actually. They are function exceptions to the general rule, but since they all are, functionally, full-class variants of existing classes, they're pretty easy to fit into the system as I have it explained. :smallbiggrin:


I'd go further and say that, particularly with regard to spellcasters, having too broad a concept is just as likely to be a bad thing. If you look at the game-breaker Tier 1 classes, one thing they all have in common is an extraordinarily broad focus, allowing them to do nearly anything. This is good for variety of concept but very bad for game balance. By contrast, the limited-list casters are much easier to balance a game around.

This will be discussed in the section on the mechanics of class creation, but thank you for reminding me.


You may also want to put in a section on accepting critique. In particular, if you can rule 0 something in your work easily to fix it, then the creator has no excuse not to fix it themselves.

Definitely something for the later sections, and I'll be sure to include it. Thanks for the input!

Saph
2011-03-13, 03:15 PM
This will be discussed, with those three as specific examples, actually. They are function exceptions to the general rule, but since they all are, functionally, full-class variants of existing classes, they're pretty easy to fit into the system as I have it explained. :smallbiggrin:

The point is, though, that there's nothing wrong with having a narrow concept base class providing that concept gives you enough fun things to do in practice. Basically, I disagree with your conclusion that this is any sort of "general rule". There's nothing wrong with trying to design a class to be very broad and general, but there's also nothing wrong with trying to design a class to be very focused and specific, particularly with regard to magic.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-13, 03:20 PM
The point is, though, that there's nothing wrong with having a narrow concept base class providing that concept gives you enough fun things to do in practice. Basically, I disagree with your conclusion that this is any sort of "general rule". There's nothing wrong with trying to design a class to be very broad and general, but there's also nothing wrong with trying to design a class to be very focused and specific, particularly with regard to magic.

Point taken. I would argue that those classes are conceptually broader than the Monk and Soulknife, for example...but the real reason those work is the Freedom of Choice thing that I mentioned briefly. When the section is finished, I'd be interested to see if I've come any closer to addressing your concerns with my conclusion.

Lord_Gareth
2011-03-13, 03:24 PM
Djinn, you need to read your PMs more.

Saph
2011-03-13, 03:28 PM
Point taken. I would argue that those classes are conceptually broader than the Monk and Soulknife, for example...but the real reason those work is the Freedom of Choice thing that I mentioned briefly. When the section is finished, I'd be interested to see if I've come any closer to addressing your concerns with my conclusion.

OK. I'll take a look once you've posted it!

Temotei
2011-03-14, 03:28 PM
Djinn can time travel? :smalleek:

"Updated 4/13/2011"

I'm glad to see this up again. Mess with time all you want if you keep this up. :smalltongue:

blackmage
2011-03-14, 03:36 PM
Djinn obviously reads Homestuck (http://www.mspaintadventures.com/).

Seerow
2011-03-14, 04:14 PM
Looking forward to the rest of the post.


Also, after reading the bit on classes, I have a strange desire to make a homebrew Soulknife/Monk hybrid.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-03-14, 04:36 PM
Djinn can time travel? :smalleek:

"Updated 4/13/2011"

Damn right I can. :smallcool:


I'm glad to see this up again. Mess with time all you want if you keep this up. :smalltongue:

I fully intend to finish the damn thing this time 'round. Glad people are getting some use out of it.


Djinn obviously reads Homestuck (http://www.mspaintadventures.com/).

I don't, actually. I think I'm missing the reference here...


Also, after reading the bit on classes, I have a strange desire to make a homebrew Soulknife/Monk hybrid.

Glad I'm not alone here. Actually, you may see a number of different takes on both classes throughout the rest of this article...since both are often-homebrewed classes, my demonstration section at the end may take both through a number of different sub-systems, to demonstrate how a concept can fit into varying places within the system.

blackmage
2011-03-14, 04:50 PM
I don't, actually. I think I'm missing the reference here...

Webcomic of sorts. Began 4/13/2009, and 413 is an recurring theme, as well as time travel.

Seerow
2011-03-23, 10:02 PM
So I'm guessing the time traveling title means we won't get another update until 4/13?