Homebrew, your thoughts?

[Circle of Life]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

Specifically: You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?
If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?
If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

Hopefully not better placed in the homebrew section, as I'm looking for opinions about homebrew, not actual homebrew works. If a mod thinks it's misplaced, feel free to move.

[noparlpf]

As a player, I generally stick to published material (including Dragon Magazine). I only rarely ask a DM to allow something homebrewed.

As a DM, I make things up when I want them to work differently from how published things work.

I have class in five minutes, so I can't look at your examples right now.

[flumphy]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

I prefer to stick to printed material if at all possible. The only exceptions are things that official sources just can't replicate: e.g., the Captain Marvel-esque class that the Giant made or a truenamer that actually functions. My reasoning will be explained below.


You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
I tell him to play a favored soul or trust him to rein it back while playing the cleric. The fact that he brought it up means that he's conscious of the issue. Better to stick with balance issues we know how to deal with than bring in homebrew that may or may not have its own problems.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
Honestly, casters get very little pity from me in this system. The only way you're going to see me making any form of caster (except maybe the healer or truenamer) "better" is by nerfing them. So if they want a gish, they can content themselves by playing a gish-in-a-box or by growing naturally. Either way is fine with me.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
I suggest he should play a swordsage or some sort of tashalatora multiclass, but if he's hellbent on playing monk 20 I'll allow it after explaining why monk 20 is bad. My reasoning is the same as in the first situation.


If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?

By no means is all homebrew poorly-formatted powers grabs. A lot of it is, though. The problem is that when you begin to allow the stuff that isn't, you potentially open the floodgates for stuff that is. People sneak things past the DM that seemed innocuous overall but, due to one poorly-written clause, end up being very abusable. People don't even bother trying to sneak things past the DM, but demand to play a blatantly overpowered class since you've allowed other homebrew in the past and call favoritism when you cite balance issues. I've turned to banning homebrew entirely when players I'm unfamiliar with enter the picture just to avoid the drama it has caused in past groups of mine.

And then there's the issue of people with no intentions of munchkinery bring in classes that appear to work on paper but end up sucking in actual play.

Now, there are definitely situations when homebrew can enhance the game, particularly when it comes to things official rules just can't deal with. And I won't claim 3.5 is a paragon of system balance, either. However, as the old saying goes, the baatezu you know is better than the baatezu you don't. I know the printed material well enough to understand its worst pitfalls and how to work around them. I'd prefer not to throw a monkey wrench into that unless absolutely necessary.

Note that this attitude only applies to crunchy systems like 3.5. I'm much more open when it comes to lighter rulesets, because small changes are less likely to have major consequences and players are less likely to be out to break the game.

[noparlpf]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

I answered this before:
As a player, I generally stick to published material (including Dragon Magazine). I only rarely ask a DM to allow something homebrewed.

As a DM, I make things up when I want them to work differently from how published things work.

I will add to this that when a player asks to use homebrewed material, I skim it and if it seems overtly overpowered I say no. Otherwise I usually (possibly foolishly) trust the players not to try to break my game. I'm kind of new as a DM.
I definitely prefer for players to stick mostly to printed material, though. It makes it easier for me to look up and it's more likely that I'm familiar with it.


Specifically:You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?

If the player is experienced, I'll tell them to stick with the Cleric or to provide an alternative and to consciously keep the power level in check. If the player is newer to the game, I would suggest a Favored Soul, or a Healer, or possibly the UA Generic Spellcaster (though it is certainly interesting in that it has access to almost any spell ever), depending on what role they want to fill.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?

I would suggest Battle Sorcerer and (just off the top of my head, since I played one once) maybe a prestige class like Green Star Adept (which has good casting progression and advances physical abilities). Alternatively, Clerics don't do badly in melee if designed for it.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?

I would let him play a Monk simply because I have seen some pretty darn good Monks in my day. Of course, my group isn't high-op, but still, some of these Monks were good...though I don't think I've seen an unarmed Monk played in my group before. One used a spiked chain and one used axes.


If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?

I don't mind homebrew too much, but I am aware of the fact that it is often used simply to gain power easily. I think in the future I'll generally stick to printed works simply so I don't have to look through pages of homebrew material, some of which is poorly formatted or explained.


If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?

As a player I prefer to work with existing classes and feats, and if something doesn't make much sense to me as written I'll just ask the DM if he's willing to let me change some small portion of it. (For example, Favored Critical not stacking with Improved Critical.)
As a DM, I like to tweak my own things because I know how it's working and it increases personalization. However, when a player asks to use something, I usually don't want to take the time to look through it if it's an entire class or something similar, and I will say no to something that's obviously broken or OP.


If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

I haven't done much. What I typically do is probably more like "houseruling". On the other hand, I once rewrote the Sorcerer (and later went back, looked at it, and decided I didn't like what I had done). I also kind of want to write a true neutral Paladin (because for some reason I once wanted to play a Druid/Paladin...don't ask why), and I made a start on that but never finished.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

Specifically: You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others? Actually, look in my sig for the Priest class, which attempts to do precisely this.

Failing that, you set ground rules:

"Okay, no Divine Metacheese, no Divine Power/Righeous Might shennanigans, no Divine Spell Power + Holy Word cheese... now keep it clean and come out of your corner when the bell dings"

Why? Well, I try to play within the rules, where possible, and I want him to have fun with his character. However, I don't want one character overshadowing the whole party, and it's tough to find a class who can provide healing, removal of status effects, and buffing without having the potential to get overbearing. So we set some ground rules on what is and is not allowed, and he works within that.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why? There are several gish-in-a-box options.

Duskblade is a fantastic gish class right out of the box. So is Hexblade. For that matter, so is Bard with DFI and War Chanter.

These I would suggest, if he didn't want to play something like a Sorcadin.

I strongly dislike the Battle Sorcerer, because it's a failed concept. Losing spells known is made of failure for a pure caster, and it doesn't really give him a lot of 'gishing' ability.

Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?I suggest Unarmed Swordsage. Why? Simple, really. I don't want him to feel worthless. I want every player to be able to meaningfully contribute. I want every single one of my players to walk away from the game with quotes like "Dude, did you see that when my character..."

If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely? I tend to be very leery of homebrew in general, because very little of it really works all that well, either by simply not functioning properly or being too over the top. From time to time, I find homebrew I like, and I've done some of myself.

If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion? Well, I loved a concept, but it just mechanically didn't work. So I made it work.

As a perfect example: My Priest base class (found in my sig). Clerics are just... yea, there's a reason they are Tier 1. I wanted something that fit the flavor of 'mouthpiece of a deity', and respected as such, but did not break the game, several different ways, simultaneously. I liked the mechanics of Shadowcasters. And thus the class was born. It's still up for PEACHing and polishing, if anyone wants to go take a look and provide feedback.

[Fax Celestis]

By no means is all homebrew poorly-formatted powers grabs. A lot of it is, though. The problem is that when you begin to allow the stuff that isn't, you potentially open the floodgates for stuff that is. People sneak things past the DM that seemed innocuous overall but, due to one poorly-written clause, end up being very abusable. People don't even bother trying to sneak things past the DM, but demand to play a blatantly overpowered class since you've allowed other homebrew in the past and call favoritism when you cite balance issues. I've turned to banning homebrew entirely when players I'm unfamiliar with enter the picture just to avoid the drama it has caused in past groups of mine.

And then there's the issue of people with no intentions of munchkinery bring in classes that appear to work on paper but end up sucking in actual play.
Just one question: how is this any different than published material?

[Person_Man]

The weaker version of a Cleric is just a Cleric who chooses to memorize weaker spells. It's that simple.

I'd let the Gish player play whatever he wants, including a homebrew class. If what he wants is significantly stronger or weaker then the group as a whole, I'd ask him to tone down or improve his spell selection as appropriate.

I let the Monk player play whatever he wants, including a Swordsage or Pathfinder Monk or a homebrew class. If he is significantly stronger or weaker then the group as a whole, I'd throw extra Monk-ish specific treasure in his direction, and allow him to take feats like Leadership, Wild Cohort, Ancestral Relic, etc.

I like homebrew, do so on a fairly regular basis, and generally don't care how much homebrew people use as long as everyone is playing a character they enjoy and having a fun time. Back in the day I used to be a stickler for RAW, as I felt this made everything more fair and easy for everyone involved. Then I realized that the people who were writing the game were not particularly interested in fairness, or balance, or editing their work before publishing it. So I gave up on it, and have been a lot more happy ever since. The key is to just build relationships and trust with the people you play with. If you do that, then 90% of your rules related issues will disappear, and the remaining 10% can be discussed over beer after each game session.

[flumphy]

Just one question: how is this any different than published material?

Because I know the published material and a lot of the more ridiculous loopholes in the rules, and I can therefore provide a list of bans and houserules beforehand. If everyone gets such a list before chargen even starts, it's kind of hard to accuse the DM of favoritism. I also have a good idea of how powerful each class is in play (something I'm admittedly not all that great at judging just from reading a class description), so I can help nudge players into choosing characters of similar powerlevels.

Again, it all boils down to the published material being familiar and limited in scope, not necessarily being of better quality.

[Tyndmyr]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

All homebrew is, by default, banned unless I review it and say otherwise.


Specifically:[list] You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?

I'd ask him what he feels is two strong about it. We'd go from there. Cloistered Cleric is likely to be mentioned.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?

I've played a straight wizard with a greatsword at this level. It works. I'd go over a number of different ways to play a gish at this level, ranging from caster to human paragon to duskblade to artificer. There is little cause for homebrew here.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?

If he's fond of monk, he can take monk. If it's a group with decent op-fu, I'll suggest better alternatives, and encourage him not to stay in monk too long. Homebrew is not a necessary portion of this.


If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?

The printed works are not sacred, and limited portions of them are banned as utterly broken. However, the vast majority of it is fine, and allowed as is.

Not ALL homebrew is poorly formatted power grabs...but there is some utterly terrible homebrew out there. Lots of it is broken in obvious or non obvious ways. Therefore, I have to pick through it in detail and consider interactions with existing published stuff.

Spending time and interest poking through a homebrew class that is likely to only ever be used by one person in one campaign is not efficient. I'm better off working on something reusable, or enjoyable by all people in the campaign. Therefore, the less homebrew, the better. And if you DO make/use homebrew...use it for things the existing mechanics do not cover, or cover exceptionally poorly. If accepted solutions exist, grab those instead.

[Volthawk]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?


I love homebrew, since I feel it either does things that official things either can't do or struggle at (especially if it introduces unique features, say like Ozodrin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153536)). I work on a 'you request it, I have a look at it and either allow it or disallow it'.


You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?

I'll let him find a more balanced one (gods knows there's enough around). For one thing, they usually are more interesting than Cleric anyway, since they usually actually have class features. Or if he wants to just trim the Cleric's power, sure. Or he can play Cleric and just not go all CoDzilla on us.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?

If the homebrew fits what he wants and he likes it, and it's balanced, I'll allow it. He could also play an official gish-in-a-box if that fits too. It's easier than the normal gish builds, is a lot smoother and again, usually has interesting stuff with it, and also saves on the chains of PrCs and multiclasses usually needed, making things a hell of a lot easier and simpler.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?


I'll suggest Unarmed Swordsage, yes, but if he or I find a nice Monk fix, he can play that.


If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?

Too much homebrew? No such thing for me, to put it simply. Put it like this: In the regular game I play in (a Skype game), every player uses homebrew with their character, going from whole new systems (we have a Xenotheurgist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122103)) from simply monster classes and ACFs (a Rat Totem Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8762323&postcount=4) Gravetouched Ghoul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9567011&postcount=524), not sure what the base race was). To be honest, if I think of my favourite classes, most of them are homebrew. As a DM, I'll look at anything put forward, and if I find that a suggestion doesn't work (not balanced, for example), I'll tell them why I'm forbidding the homebrew. One thing that might also be important is that I tend to try and find a place for everything in the worlds I make, so reasoning like 'it doesn't fit with the world' doesn't really apply to me, and anyway I strongly support refluffing, so if the given flavour doesn't apply, it can be changed to work better either with the world or how the player envisions his character. Plus, of course, I use homebrew when I DM anyway, and I stand by the statement "anything you use, the DM can also use". All in all, I feel homebrew makes things a lot more interesting and fun.

One thing I will say is that where the homebrew comes from is relevant. D&D Wiki has a reputation for having very imbalanced stuff, while here has better homebrew, simply because we have people who will critique the stuff people post. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that homebrewers are making their stuff having seen how 3.5 turned out. The good ones know how things should be balanced, and with critique and testing, they can be more balanced than most the stuff WoTC put out.

Yeah, I'm pretty relaxed with this kinda thing.

[Tyndmyr]

Also, as an addendum, there are absolutely no safe sources. I just recently had to say no to the Swordmage, one of Fax Celestis' classes, whom I am given to understand has a solid rep as a homebrewer.

In addition to being straight up stronger than a solidly built ToB character in it's own right, it added 3/4 initiate progression and 1/2 spellcaster progression across the board. If I remember correctly, the phrasing was not such that the player needed to choose only one. The situation in question was gestalt. The implications of this are just a little bit ludicrous.

All it takes is one particularly poor interaction to turn an otherwise interesting class into a time bomb.

[Circle of Life]

Stepping in from my casual observation to note that the Swordmage belongs to DragoonWraith, not Fax. It's hosted on Fax's wiki however, which may be where the confusion came from.

I don't feel that it's fair to judge a class based on its interaction with alternate rules, but that's just me. (This is a general statement, not something specific to the Swordmage.)

[Volthawk]

Also, as an addendum, there are absolutely no safe sources. I just recently had to say no to the Swordmage, one of Fax Celestis' classes, whom I am given to understand has a solid rep as a homebrewer.

In addition to being straight up stronger than a solidly built ToB character in it's own right, it added 3/4 initiate progression and 1/2 spellcaster progression across the board. If I remember correctly, the phrasing was not such that the player needed to choose only one. The situation in question was gestalt. The implications of this are just a little bit ludicrous.

All it takes is one particularly poor interaction to turn an otherwise interesting class into a time bomb.

Similarly, there are pretty much no fully balanced official sources. Even ToB has the Ruby Knight Windicator. And I never said anywhere was perfect, just some places have a higher general quality than others. You still need to review stuff. Besides, Gestalt isn't the standard anyway, so most stuff wouldn't be made with that as a major consideration.

[Tyndmyr]

Stepping in from my casual observation to note that the Swordmage belongs to DragoonWraith, not Fax. It's hosted on Fax's wiki however, which may be where the confusion came from.

I don't feel that it's fair to judge a class based on its interaction with alternate rules, but that's just me. (This is a general statement, not something specific to the Swordmage.)

Gotcha. I was unable to access it today to quote the precise wording, but I do recall it being hosted there.

Gestalt is, while an alternate ruleset, a fairly common one. How well a class works within alternate rulesets is a good indication of how well it's put together. It's pretty easy to design a class that say, works with core. It's a somewhat harder thing to design class that works with core, all splatbooks, all the variant systems at least as well as the existing classes generally do. Hell, lots of people don't even bother to put types on abilities, damage, or bonuses all the time. This INCLUDES a number of third party published sources, which also need to be regarded with extreme skepticism.

There's a certain polish that needs to be present to avoid classes being cludgy, broken, or unclear. It is extremely common for this to be neglected. Thus, the amount of time needed to review a class for inclusion is not trivial.

Official stuff, on the other hand, I already know about the broken bits in.

[Circle of Life]

There's a certain polish that needs to be present to avoid classes being cludgy, broken, or unclear. It is extremely common for this to be neglected. Thus, the amount of time needed to review a class for inclusion is not trivial.

I'm curious as to what your definition of polish is in this case. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211265) (disclosure: homebrew belongs to me, not an attempt to pimp my own works), how would that rate on your 'polish scale', as it were?

Myself, I see far more homebrew that looks like the above link than something that it seems like you're describing, so I'm curious as to whether it's a difference in quality homebrew viewed, or expectations.

I think I should have noted this in the first post, but there are no wrong answers possible in this thread, only truthful ones.

[Dralnu]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

I've played D&D for 3-4 years now. I'd say that only in the last year would I be comfortable with homebrew. This is because I've become so familiar with the system itself that I have a good eye for balance and what power level I want in my games.

Before then, I stuck with published sources because, while not perfect, the forums have made me aware of the red flags. It's not as easy with homebrew, you mostly have to review it on your own.


Specifically:[list] You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?

I'd let him do what he wants. There's a couple solutions: 1) pick weaker spells, if you know about the game-breaking spells then you can easily avoid them 2) pick a weaker class, something like favored soul or homebrew 3) anything else the player can come up with that's reasonable.



You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?

I'd point him to the duskblade from PHB2 because honestly that's an amazing gish right off the bat. If he wants homebrew instead though, I'd let him so long as the class was appropriate.



Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?

Whatever he wants so long as it's not too powerful for the group. He can play monk if he wants, and if there's issues then he can choose to change classes.



If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?

My favorite homebrew is simple brews that are easy to read and understand. I highly dislike brews that have 30 abilities each level and each one is brand new and super wordy. If I run into that, I tell the player that I didn't read the entire thing, it's allowed, but if I decide at a later point that it's too strong that he will have to roll up a new character.

My personal opinion is some stuff just doesn't need a brew. Really, Mr. Paladin Fix #4545432, have you even looked at Pathfinder's Paladin? That doesn't factor in my judgment of a homebrew, but I make sure that the player is aware of the Pathfinder alternative at least.

If there's one thing I don't like about a class then I'll work with the player to fix it. If it's a lot of the class I don't like, I won't allow it.

"Highly established" sources mean nothing to me. I'm aiming for a power level of high tier 4 to mid/low tier 3 in my games, because that's where my players play at. For spellcasters, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer (at the mid/high lvls) are too strong, and Warblade is my upper limit for a fighter type. Because of this, I'd allow Dragoonwraith's Invoker class in any day but will ban his Swordmage in a heartbeat. Jiriku's Monk class gets a thumbs up, but his Ranger gets two thumbs down. Errant X's Daggerspell Guardian makes me cheer for him, but his Ebon Initiate makes me cry. Coincidentally, Circle of Life, the stuff I've seen from you so far falls in the perfect range that I'm looking for.



If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

I started because I was procrastinating studying for a math exam and had this sweet idea for an illusion-based fighter that would reward creativity.

I'd like to think that my "surge" mechanic in my classes is fun. I like my fights to be cinematic, dramatic. People throwing out their strongest stuff in the first couple rounds and then saying, "welp, I'm all out of the good stuff," is boring for me. Fighting to build up to your most powerful attack is way way cooler, I think.

Did it better the 3.5 system? Lolz no. Like most brewers, nobody uses my stuff, so it doesn't really affect the system much. :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

It's above average. Look for the details...starting gold gets left out frequently, for instance. There are still a few minor things I'd pick at, and I certainly haven't checked it for all possible negative interactions in this amount of time, but plenty of homebrew is worse. Plenty of published classes are worse, even. Pop open your nearest Mongoose publishing book, for example, and start flipping through. Take a drink every time you see a type left unlabeled. It's a rough game.

That said, I likely wouldn't use either of the classes listed, since they're remarkably similar to warlock and Eldritch Theurge. There's little there I can't do with existing mechanics and a refluff.

[Volthawk]

That said, I likely wouldn't use either of the classes listed, since they're remarkably similar to warlock and Eldritch Theurge. There's little there I can't do with existing mechanics and a refluff.

Try converting Ozodrin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153536) to official stuff.

[Tyndmyr]

Try converting Ozodrin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153536) to official stuff.

I don't like certain choices in it(such as mechanically screwing with alignment the way it does, or variable percentages of crit negation instead of the standard fortification model.), and would frankly just point at the Alienist PrC instead.

Sure, it doesn't have Ex extradimensional spaces as body parts...but I consider that a plus. Long lists of complicated rules with highly non-standard interactions are not a plus. And I'm not exactly sure what the Ozodrin is actually supposed to be good at.

Hell, it has rules that, strictly speaking, do not work at all. Such as the swallow whole in response to a swallow whole. There's some serious size issues there.

I wouldn't touch that class with a ten foot pole.

[Circle of Life]

Server error doublepost, disregard.

[Circle of Life]

*grabs the thread's steering wheel and gives it a twist*

Several people are bringing up the Duskblade as a viable gish. Why do you feel that's a good alternative to a "real" gish? Many people I've spoken to have expressed disdain over its extremely small and focused spell list, and the fact that it's trivially easy to "break" (loosely used here) its 1st level spell learning mechanic, in that it only has enough 0th level spells on its list to support a +2 int modifier for spells known. It has also, in my circle, been called out as being extremely focused on blasting, which is generally the opposite of a gish-style character. Why, in your opinions, is the Duskblade a good example of an "automatic gish" type of class? If your player wished to play a more traditional type of gish, what would your response be in that case, again assuming the 4th level party?

[CTrees]

DMing: homebrew for PCs is banned by default, but if you want to try something, bring it to me, let me know why you want to use it, and if it's relatively transparent and horribly broken I'll likely allow it. For instance, if there were a monk/wizard gish-in-a-can class, odds are it's going to be fairly simple to figure out the interactions with existing rules, and if it's not too weak, I really wouldn't have a problem. An entirely new magic system? I'd probably just say no.

As a PC: unless I find something I really, really love, I'm not even going to touch it. Why? Because while the published material isn't all that well balanced, if I take something that looks really good compared to my party, even just by better optimization level, there's a very high likelihood of people calling foul, even if it isn't *actually* broken. Also, I like being able to frame my arguments as RAW v. non-RAW, and homebrew doesn't give me any strength, there.

Note: refluffing is different, in my mind. For example, we had a winter themed druid (in PF). She wanted the orison, Create Water, to create snow instead. Mechanically? Not really any different, and normally slightly worse than the default water, so why the heck not? Go for it.

[Tyndmyr]

*grabs the thread's steering wheel and gives it a twist*

Several people are bringing up the Duskblade as a viable gish. Why do you feel that's a good alternative to a "real" gish? Many people I've spoken to have expressed disdain over its extremely small and focused spell list, and the fact that it's trivially easy to "break" (loosely used here) its 1st level spell learning mechanic, in that it only has enough 0th level spells on its list to support a +2 int modifier for spells known. It has also, in my circle, been called out as being extremely focused on blasting, which is generally the opposite of a gish-style character. Why, in your opinions, is the Duskblade a good example of an "automatic gish" type of class?

It's not a fantastic gish. It is, however, a very easy gish to pick up and use. A shortage of cantrips? Meh. EVERY list is short on cantrips, and cantrips are not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. Blasting focused? Thats what newbies tend to do with spells anyhow.

It's role is as the newbie gish class, so they can stab and blast a little. Power wise, it's tier 3. It fits well enough into pretty much any campaign. It's the quick fix to "I want to play a gish". People looking for maximal power are exploring other options, not asking me "How do I make someone that casts and does melee?".

[Circle of Life]

Hm. Not exactly what I was asking. Perhaps if I phrased it differently.

Why is the Duskblade considered a well-made class when it has these glaring issues? Or is it considered well-made because of its restrictive nature? Are classes with soldered-on training wheels good design because of the training wheels, or despite them?

[Dralnu]

*grabs the thread's steering wheel and gives it a twist*

Several people are bringing up the Duskblade as a viable gish. Why do you feel that's a good alternative to a "real" gish? Many people I've spoken to have expressed disdain over its extremely small and focused spell list, and the fact that it's trivially easy to "break" (loosely used here) its 1st level spell learning mechanic, in that it only has enough 0th level spells on its list to support a +2 int modifier for spells known. It has also, in my circle, been called out as being extremely focused on blasting, which is generally the opposite of a gish-style character. Why, in your opinions, is the Duskblade a good example of an "automatic gish" type of class? If your player wished to play a more traditional type of gish, what would your response be in that case, again assuming the 4th level party?

What Tyndmyr said. It's simple, straightforward, easy to use and understand, fits the power level that I want.


generally the opposite of a gish-style character

Who what where?

Just google searched for a definition, and according to Wiktionary:

Etymology

The term originates in the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) game, where it originally referred to a Githyanki fighter/wizard combination.
Noun

gish (plural gishes)

1. (role-playing games) A magician, or character that is skilled in both physical combat and the use of magic. Most gish characters use their magical abilities to increase their own personal combat abilities (known as "buffing").
2. (slang) An outsider.

Duskblade is skilled both in fighting (full BAB, d8, armor) and the use of magic (they got spellz!). They have buffs and they can channel offensive spells into their hack n' slashing. This is not a gish?

You want a different gish? Fine, I'll look at your 'brew. But duskblade works fine for most people.

[KoboldCleric]

I generally avoid homebrew as much because I know my players as because I don't trust the quality of homebrew. I have some players in the group who could bring me the ideal piece of homebrew for their concept with perfectly balanced, insightful mechanics, the works, and still end up being considerably over or underpowered due to the way they choose to play the class. One of my players plays every class as if it's a Paladin/Monk. Lawful, Good, knightly, focuses on longsword & shield, lance, and unarmed combat, only uses healing spells, etc. I could hand him the lightning warror and he'd still be tier 5.

I have another player who will make any class into a tier 3/4 or higher because he can find feat chains and odd multiclass interactions to make things stronger (and often weirder) than they ought to be. I'm more comfortable DMing when he's playing a swashbuckler than a different homebrew tier 5 "swashbuckler" because I know what to expect from him with published classes.

The Duskblade works really well for my tier ~4 group. Probably because it's tier 4. My group needs simple, straightforward spells because they only ever use spells with simple, straightforward affects. They enjoy seeing the enemy's hp meter dropping; they fail to understand how someone with full hp is defeated (even if he's blind, deaf, entangled, and cowering). Note*: except tier 3 guy above who needs the simple spells so that he can't be too creative with them.

[Tyndmyr]

Hm. Not exactly what I was asking. Perhaps if I phrased it differently.

Why is the Duskblade considered a well-made class when it has these glaring issues? Or is it considered well-made because of its restrictive nature? Are classes with soldered-on training wheels good design because of the training wheels, or despite them?

Simple, works well with existing ruleset...these are virtues, not vices.

I can hand it to a player without explaining multiclassing, partial bab, the art of maintaining caster level progression, etc. It does it's job with minimal fuss. Many players appreciate that. If one wants to get into higher op choices, I'll get into those options with him. Plenty of those exist as well.

A good class fills an archtype that is not already covered, or for which the existing classes are terrible(like truenamer). It does so in a way that plays nice with the rest of the system, and is easy for even a new player to pick up. It's also clearly, tersely written, and is more or less balanced.

[Circle of Life]

Duskblade is skilled both in fighting (full BAB, d8, armor) and the use of magic (they got spellz!). They have buffs and they can channel offensive spells into their hack n' slashing. This is not a gish?

It is, technically. But the Duskblade's spell list is vastly more blasty than buffy, with only a few worthwhile buffs at a reasonable level (1st level Resist Energy is nice).

I'm not saying that the blasty-magic-knight style is wrong, simply that it's different than the usual meaning of "gish". Your own quote seems to support that.

More, this discussion is for my sake as much as anything, so I can understand why people view the Duskblade in a positive light, when I have found little but scorn for it elsewhere (aside from niche uses, like dipping for easier access to Abjurant Champion). I have never seen training wheels as a good thing in a class design, but people seem to disagree with that. I'm curious as to why.

[Tyndmyr]

It is, technically. But the Duskblade's spell list is vastly more blasty than buffy, with only a few worthwhile buffs at a reasonable level (1st level Resist Energy is nice).

The "worthwhile" and "reasonable" criteria are not part of the definition of gish. Those are optimization choices. Yes, a wizard spell list is better. That's pretty much why the wizard is tier 1, and the duskblade is a tier 3(and not pushing the high end of the tier, either).

That's fine. Not every class needs to be a tier 1.


More, this discussion is for my sake as much as anything, so I can understand why people view the Duskblade in a positive light, when I have found little but scorn for it elsewhere (aside from niche uses, like dipping for easier access to Abjurant Champion). I have never seen training wheels as a good thing in a class design, but people seem to disagree with that. I'm curious as to why.

That sounds like an optimization discussion. What is considered desirable on the high end of optimization is not necessarily the only criteria.

A well designed class is not necessarily easier to abuse for cheese purposes. In fact, the opposite is often the case. The few classes that hit my ban list do so because they ARE heavily abusable, and arguably poorly designed(tainted spellcaster, for example).

[Volthawk]

A good class fills an archtype that is not already covered, or for which the existing classes are terrible(like truenamer). It does so in a way that plays nice with the rest of the system, and is easy for even a new player to pick up. It's also clearly, tersely written, and is more or less balanced.

See, for me it also has to be interesting. A lot of official things, although they may be clearly written and easy to learn, just seem bland to me. I like the interesting, unusual things that some homebrew (the complaints you have about Ozodrin having weird, nonstandard stuff is a feature, not a bug, to me). I enjoy all the weird stuff like that. But eh, I might just be weird like that.

Although one area where I think homebrew is best for is expanding existing stuff. For example, Tome of Battle. Some of the best balanced non-caster stuff around, but with a very small scope, for example having no real ranged support. Homebrew fixes that. Most of the subsystems introduced in 3.5 splatbooks don't interact much with each other. Homebrew fixes that, not only by providing PrCs that mix systems, but also ones that do that while having flavour and interesting features instead of just being a bland mystic theurge type deal.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It is, technically. But the Duskblade's spell list is vastly more blasty than buffy, with only a few worthwhile buffs at a reasonable level (1st level Resist Energy is nice).

I'm not saying that the blasty-magic-knight style is wrong, simply that it's different than the usual meaning of "gish". Your own quote seems to support that.

More, this discussion is for my sake as much as anything, so I can understand why people view the Duskblade in a positive light, when I have found little but scorn for it elsewhere (aside from niche uses, like dipping for easier access to Abjurant Champion). I have never seen training wheels as a good thing in a class design, but people seem to disagree with that. I'm curious as to why.

Riddle me this... when does a limited spell list cease to be a problem?

Answer... when you put more spells on it.

There's plenty of ways to put more spells on your spell list. However, the Duskblade has something priceless to any gish: Action Economy.

They get, in-house, Quick Cast (x/day) and Arcane Channeling.

Quickening spontaneous spells is not easy. It generally involves heavy feat tax. They get to do it in-house. This is big.

Arcane Channeling... any spell they can cast, they can cast through their attacks, including through their full attacks. You want something to channel? How about Touch of Idiocy? How about Shivering Touch? Vampiric Touch? Delivering touch spells without needing to Cast on the Defensive or make Concentration checks, AND do your regularly scheduled damage output at the same time? Sign Me Up!

Oh, how would you like 3rd level spells as a 1st level spell? How about Resist Energy?

Or, would you prefer Stretch Weapon so you get reach? They also get Dimension Hop, GMW, DimDoor, Slashing Dispel, and Crown Of spells.

For more channeling goodness, how about Dispelling Touch, so every swing in your full attack triggers a dispel check?

[Tyndmyr]

See, for me it also has to be interesting. A lot of official things, although they may be clearly written and easy to learn, just seem bland to me. I like the interesting, unusual things that some homebrew (the complaints you have about Ozodrin having weird, nonstandard stuff is a feature, not a bug, to me). I enjoy all the weird stuff like that. But eh, I might just be weird like that.

Good flavor is nice. That said, flavor can be added or removed without affecting much of the rest, generally.

You do NOT need wild mechanics to have good flavor. For example, the Ozodrin failing to list stomach capacity in Swallow Whole isn't flavor...it's just bad. Everywhere does that, and now you've introduced a lovely source of confusion, especially now that you have multiple mouths and an extradimensional stomach.


Although one area where I think homebrew is best for is expanding existing stuff. For example, Tome of Battle. Some of the best balanced non-caster stuff around, but with a very small scope, for example having no real ranged support. Homebrew fixes that. Most of the subsystems introduced in 3.5 splatbooks don't interact much with each other. Homebrew fixes that, not only by providing PrCs that mix systems, but also ones that do that while having flavour and interesting features instead of just being a bland mystic theurge type deal.

I agree. Use the existing systems, but cover topics that were not addressed by existing classes. One of my homebrew attempts that received fairly positive results was basically a diet theurge, that added a divine domain to an arcane spellcaster. While I make no claim that my homebrew is special, or less prone to errors, and should be subject to the same paranoia as everyone else, I feel that a tight focus like that is necessary. If you can't summarize what your class does in a reasonable sentence, you need to pare down.

[Circle of Life]

Tch, this detour into optimization-minded discussion really is my fault. I was a little reckless talking about the perceived shortcomings of the Duskblade, and I guess that made it look like I was talking the class down in favor of a stronger gish mix. To clarify, this thread has nothing to do with optimization, and my questions aren't meant to infer a certain level of optimization at all.

I'm not sure how else I can phrase the questions though, and the responses seem to make assumptions of my opinions that don't exist. Thank you for your input anyway. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread topic. Or we can continue on with Duskblades if you like, though they're very tangental to the larger purpose of the thread.

[Tyndmyr]

I suppose I should answer the homebrewer questions.

What started me homebrewing? Fixing terrible homebrew players brought to me. Sometimes I just said no, sometimes, if I had time, I'd fix it. I've adopted a rather strict policy of only fixing it if no reasonable alternative exists, though.

Greatest Accomplishment? Ordained Arcanist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11447531#post11447531). Not because it's the biggest attempt, but because I feel that among my works, it's the most polished.

Have I changed the game? Not really, no. I'm a small fish in a very big pond. I doubt my few homebrew attempts have even been read by much of anyone outside of those who peruse the homebrew forums.

[Kerrin]

I used to enjoy reading through other folks' homebrew and doing some of my own when I had more time. Nowadays I don't have the time, so generally stick to the regular material plus a few minor tweaks that the group agrees would make playing more enjoyable (e.g. streamlining something minor that is annoyingly complex).

[Lord.Sorasen]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

I would offer to review things my players bring up... But in my group, even though I'm the DM I have by far the most knowledge of the system. I tend to avoid homebrew, though, just because there aren't many people to talk to about it as compared to official material.


Specifically:[list] You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?

Is his only concern power? Because cleric power comes from spells. Which he can select. So I'd probably be all "I mean, go for it if you want". If he wants a weaker class, I'd point to favored soul, healer (as a joke mostly), or spirit shaman I guess.

Here's my stance: If I don't trust something (in that it seems too powerful for the current group) I'll allow it if it's vital to their character... If it's not vital, I say no but keep the option open. If the character performs well enough without it I won't let them have it... But if their performance lacks and could really be improved with it then I'll allow it. It seems to mostly work.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?

I'd ask for more specifics on what he means by gish (my friends wouldn't use the term gish really.) With that in mind I'd suggest battle sorcerer, psychic warrior, duskblade (maybe, I don't quite know how it works), or just the normal way if they want. I don't know why they would need homebrew honestly, the game is well designed for the gish as far as I can tell.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?

I really don't get tome of battle... But I must admit the unarmed swordsage is a class idea I like most of all the three. And the mystical style seems to fit... I might ask if they want to do that... But right now I avoid the book, so I don't know. I might consider having them play a pathfinder monk, or a tashalatora monk because I love psychic warrior.


If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?

It's not that I dislike homebrew (actually I consider homebrew to be RAW, in a way, as the game rules do tell you to make the adjustments you see fit for your personal style), but rather that so far I haven't seen a need yet. The game seems to pretty much do all the things I want it to without new material. Pathfinder, which I've been moving to, I feel is even more fit in this regard. I'll consider homebrew and will use homebrew material when I find a situation I cannot remedy without it. I don't know who here did it, but there's a particular monk fix on these forums somewhere that I have been considering for a while now for 3.5 games...

[Hazzardevil]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?
I try to use homebrew when possible, although recently I will think carefully about weather or not a DM would think it is balanced before asking.


Specifically: You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
If it's a new guy I would point them towards the favoured soul or if they find some homebrew they like the look of, I'll take a look, DMing is hard work, if a player wants to try a divine caster, I'll expect them to find it themselves rather than get me to find them one.

You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
I would first of all show them some Gish builds and also show them some gish classes I know and let them take their pick really.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
I would show them 3 or 4 monk fixes I have seen and let them choose one or find their own.


If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?
I'm a part-time homebrewer, I will often homebrew things that for niche's that people haven't done yet or not made one I life or I have in the past homebrewed something specially for a game to try. The last time I did this I got nothing but cries from homebrew haters about how it was overpowered. Here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=137577&page=2) if your interested.

[Malimar]

As a player, I almost never ask for homebrew. Anything I need, I can find with a little book-diving. Once in a blue moon I'll ask for a slight variation on some already established thing.

As a DM, I allow no homebrew except a handful of little things I brewed up myself.


I'd suggest he play a Favored Soul, Healer, Adept, or deliberately failing to optimize the cleric. (Completely unoptimized cleric being about on par with unoptimized anything else, and my players don't tend to optimize at all.) If he really wanted, I might homebrew up some flaws like "you only have one domain".

I'd say "This campaign will probably never get to a level where this character will be entirely effective. You should probably play a duskblade instead."

I wouldn't suggest unarmed swordsage. I allow ToB, but I don't like it. I'd probably advise the player that Monk isn't awful as a dip, but he should consider including other clases. I wouldn't say he can't, though. (Unoptimized monk being about on par as unoptimized anything else.)

I'm prejudiced against homebrew, mostly because I'm not always entirely confident in my own ability to assess balance. So I just restrict anything that hasn't at least been cursorily looked at by somebody at WotC.
I do allow a few things I homebrew up myself, but these are (with a few exceptions) usually deliberately poor choices compared to anything from WotC-published sources, and I mostly just offer them because I use them for NPC purposes and I might as well give the PCs the option.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Tch, this detour into optimization-minded discussion really is my fault. I was a little reckless talking about the perceived shortcomings of the Duskblade, and I guess that made it look like I was talking the class down in favor of a stronger gish mix. To clarify, this thread has nothing to do with optimization, and my questions aren't meant to infer a certain level of optimization at all.

I'm not sure how else I can phrase the questions though, and the responses seem to make assumptions of my opinions that don't exist. Thank you for your input anyway. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread topic. Or we can continue on with Duskblades if you like, though they're very tangental to the larger purpose of the thread.

I'm going to just leave this at the door: In my mind there are three premade gish classes I like. The duskblade is one of them. Its virtues to me are basically a couple of the flaws you mentioned. They have blasty spells. A lot of beginners want to be able to cast blaster spells, but they want to use a weapon well as well.

The second is bard... Which isn't really a gish. But you cast spells and you can sort of use a blade so I like it. It's my idea of "support" gish.

Finally there's my favorite, psychic warrior, which is basically what it sounds like you want in a gish. Your powers can gear you towards all sorts of different combat styles, and really it's just cool.

[Circle of Life]

Finally there's my favorite, psychic warrior, which is basically what it sounds like you want in a gish. Your powers can gear you towards all sorts of different combat styles, and really it's just cool.

I don't really 'want' anything from a published gish. I almost exclusively DM, so my ability to do anything from a player's perspective is very limited. What I was actually trying to discover is why people view the training wheels placed on the Duskblade as a good thing. Almost any class can be made simpler, but it's hard to remove the training wheels bolted onto the Duskblade. At least, that's what I thought. This line of questioning led to unfortunate implications however, so I suppose it'll be a question left unanswered. It's not terribly important anyway.

[Coidzor]

The "worthwhile" and "reasonable" criteria are not part of the definition of gish. Those are optimization choices. Yes, a wizard spell list is better. That's pretty much why the wizard is tier 1, and the duskblade is a tier 3(and not pushing the high end of the tier, either).

That's fine. Not every class needs to be a tier 1.

No, but the niche and concept a duskblade fills is essentially that of a guy with a sword who just makes it glow to do more damage.

Just like the way certain magic weapon properties makes the sword glow a bit and do more damage.

[Morph Bark]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

It depends on the campaign really. I usually do no homebrew or all homebrew class-wise for campaigns, no mixing things, mostly due to most homebrew being questionably balanced (I stick to Tier 3-4 plus Psion for non-homebrew campaigns) and me not being fully familiar with them. At the point where I use it, I'm like "let's throw it to the wind and go wild" and it is a load of fun, but the setting is wildly different from typical DnD.


You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?

Healer with Turn Undead 1 + Cha times a day and two domains. Standard order.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?

Duskblade? Otherwise multiclass it if the campaign is mostly/all non-homebrew.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?

Unarmed Swordsages are standard fare in my campaigns, but I've had monks with some multiclassing in there that went well enough at the first few levels we played at, shoulda gone without a Warblade in that campaign though.

I must say I'm not really much one for fixes and I've seen VERY VERY FEW that I actually wanted to use. T.G. Oskar's Paladin and Warlock and your Ninja were prettymuch the only fixes I've wanted to go with.


If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?

I LOVE homebrew, but it all depends on the campaign. Typically its classes and races only, because the rest gets too easily out of whack power-wise, be it up or down. But I always at least skim and make suggestions myself.


If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

My best homebrew is what I have not made yet. :smallwink:

Alternatively: Decide for yourself (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9183867&postcount=75).

[Dralnu]

I don't really 'want' anything from a published gish. I almost exclusively DM, so my ability to do anything from a player's perspective is very limited. What I was actually trying to discover is why people view the training wheels placed on the Duskblade as a good thing. Almost any class can be made simpler, but it's hard to remove the training wheels bolted onto the Duskblade. At least, that's what I thought. This line of questioning led to unfortunate implications however, so I suppose it'll be a question left unanswered. It's not terribly important anyway.

You've mentioned "duskblade" and "training wheels" two or three times now and I have no idea what you mean by this. Could you elaborate please?

[Circle of Life]

See basically the entire discussion on the previous page. I really don't desire to turn the thread in that direction again. Suffice to say the class has a built-in low skill ceiling seemingly designed to make it easier to pick up and play, with little regard for people beyond that point in the game.

Again, not looking for opinions on it at this time, as it seems inevitable that the discussion will derail again.

[KoboldCleric]

What I was actually trying to discover is why people view the training wheels placed on the Duskblade as a good thing.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'training wheels', but I can only think you mean the small and focused size of its spell list, because compared to a lot of other full BAB classes it's no less complex. A fighter has feats which it selects to make it a better meatshield and maybe give it a couple outside of combat options, a barbarian has rage to make it it harder & DR/- to make it last longer, a Ranger has a combat style and favoured enemies to make it hit harder and some spells for a little bit of sneakyness and general utility, a Paladin has smite evil and a magic horse to increase its combat effectiveness and some minor healing and utility spells to contribute elsewhere, etc.

The Duskblade spell list is built to accompany its class features, which I think it does well. The big draw of the class is the ability to channel spells through a weapon; the spell list gives you a selection of spells to channel and a small variety of spells to ensure you have an opportunity to do just that. Compared to your basic fullcaster it's definitely much more focused, but it doesn't pretend to be anything but what it is, and that's what people like about it; it performs exactly as advertised.

Could it have used a little bit of battlefield control to complete its list? Sure. Personally I think the various wall spells out of the evocation school would have been great additions to its list, but the duskblade is ultimately a primary melee combatant; it's not supposed to have a huge selection of general utility, that's why the party has a wizard.

EDIT: Sorry, hadn't seen your most recent post before posting this; I had been multitasking, so it took me quite a while to actually get around to finishing this post.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I must say, I love homebrew - both in making and in using. The issue there is finding 'brew that is acceptable to you as a DM and as a player. Or acceptable to your DM if you're a player.

I'm a big fan of the Homebrew forums here on GITP. Most of what I see I either have nothing to add or dislike for one reason or another. That being said, a lot of what I do see, I like... just not all of it. Be it amazing fluff with crap crunch, the inverse, or something else.

[Silva Stormrage]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

Specifically: You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?
If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?
If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

Hopefully not better placed in the homebrew section, as I'm looking for opinions about homebrew, not actual homebrew works. If a mod thinks it's misplaced, feel free to move.

Interesting question,

I prefer to let players just play what they want, if its a cool homebrew that can't be duplicated through some other means effectively (Homebrew monster classes, ect) I will generally allow it after revieiwing it. If a player approaches me and says "Its like class "X" but better" I probably won't allow it (Unless its monk see below).

First scenario: Divine caster
First suggest favored soul or similiar divine class
Then suggest homebrews I feel are appropriate, if he doesn't like any tell him to look for some
Last resort ban OP'ed combos and spells.


Second scenario: Gish
First suggest duskblade
Second suggest homebrews
If he doesn't like any of the homebrews and can't find any others he likes then he gets to progress into the roll normally.

Third scenario: Monk
Due to past experience I don't think there ARE any quick easy fixes for monk.
First suggest the Test of spite homebrew because I love that one.
Then suggest Unarmed Sword sage
Then suggest other homebrews
Warn him he will be under powered if he stay normal monk
If he stays then I guess that sucks for him...

Homebrew in general: I think that most of the classes should be standard classes instead of Homebrew. Homebrew is for fixing the problems with 3.5 not replacing the whole system. Homebrews should be used only if the player's can't duplicate it already with competency and enjoyment (if a player HATES maneuvers telling him to play an unarmed swordsage is kinda rude).

My favorite homebrew is my Soul Devourer class (see signature), though my most popular one seems to be my Lord of the Uttercold class (see sig as well)

[Coidzor]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible?

If it's allowed and something I want, I'm going to use it regardless of its status. Since print Non-WOTC sources repeatedly get slammed to the point where even asking for feedback about a specific source and if it's got any worthwhile or interesting content is a futile exercise on any forum I've found, and I prefer to not throw money at several books where I'd have to look over the entirety of it myself before deciding if it was even anything I'd want to use in a game much less something that would be consistent with the other materials I'd use...

Well, if I get to see what people whose viewpoints I respect have approved of in regards to homebrew, that's going to make me quite happy, and seems to be the only real way to expand the pool of resources I can draw from.


Specifically: You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?

I'd question him as to why exactly he felt that way, considering the type of people I normally play with, but hey, if he wants to play a Shugenja or spirit shaman or something, that's fine by me. I've no real go-to homebrew sources, so I'd much prefer if he had something actually in mind if he was so sure in his system mastery that he'd be unable to stop himself from stealing the show from two T3s.

I mostly prefer those two options over trimming the cleric's power, because going through and trimming the cleric's power and spell list book by book is a bit of a long and involved process relative to the two others. I'd much prefer to read over a class writeup and skim its spell list than have to go through and figure out what exactly his problem was and then figure out how exactly to get him to stop having his issue with the class.

Sure, if it's something quick and easily done, that's all fine and good, but it seems just as easily able to dissolve into an unfun guessing game of methdically plodding through all cleric-related content ever.

And if I were going to go through that much trouble for one of the Big 6, I'd make a rebalancing compendium (see, Brilliant Gameologists) style effort out of it.


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?

I'd probably port over the magus from pathfinder or allow homebrew unless he already had a build plan and knew what he was going into and expecting.

If someone wants to be a duskblade, and the party is flexible enough to not mind the loss of someone who can use magic outside of combat, whatevskies.

If someone heard that duskblade was a gish-in-a-can and didn't understand what they were getting into, I'd point them towards Dictum Mortuum's work (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=525.0), and give them the age old "Are you sure?" face.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?

Well, I hate monks and their nature as traps. So I'm kind of biased on the subject, but I'd point them towards a couple of alternatives and let him take his pick.

And if he's too dead set on playing a WOTC monk to play ball with me, well, his loss. *shrug*


If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different?

I'm not sure I understand the exact idea behind the question of "too much homebrew?" I could see it either being some kind of arbitrary hard limit on the amount of homebrew per game or some kind of soft limit on the number of house rules and homebrew material one can be using before one might as well just create one's own custom system.

I'm not sure where I'd say the line was for when one would be better off creating one's own system, probably a question of frustration and trying to fit x pegs into y holes, but I don't really see any reason to object to homebrew material featuring prominently or pervasively in a game in and of itself.

I suppose if a printed class did what I wanted it to but a homebrew class also did I'd probably pick the printed one, but generally homebrew is either going to present a fix of the class or be more careful about reinventing the wheel, so I'm not sure where you're really trying to go with the second question of this bloc, either.

Continually wanting to change characters is an issue, and an actual problem, even, entirely separate from the use of homebrew material, if that's what you're getting at. :smallconfused:


If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

Well, I haven't done a whole lot, and I've never really shared anything I've done beyond the rough concept of a setting once on these boards... I think I started because I wanted to come up with my own setting, and because I'd not seen anyone do Jägers (http://girlgenius.wikia.com/wiki/J%C3%A4germonster)from Girl Genius (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/) in a way that really satisfied me, and I rather wanted to include something like them instead of orcs or hobgoblins, especially as I view 'em somewhere inbetween the bestial savagery of the orc and the regimented cruelty of the hobgoblin. And not so much with the evil as the liking fighting.

Then it sort of snowballed from there, poking at necromancy and messing with the idea of creatures that are combinations of types, like an undead creature combined with a plant creature. Or just symbiosis...

And eventually I started working at one time on a graft-like subsystem just because the endless restrictions placed on grafts to the point where they were practically unusable always irked me.

None of it really ever got finished, partially due to a computer dying and only just now being brought back into a state of functionality.

[Ernir]

You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
Whatever he wants to do, really. Being aware of the power problem is sometimes enough to fix it.
If he's set on playing a not-T1, I'd probably suggest WotC options (spontaneous Cleric, FS) before diving through the homebrew forum myself. If he already has a class in mind, I'd give it a look.

I go with this option because it involves the least amount of work for me. If I already knew of an awesome homebrewed divine class, I'd suggest at the same time I tell him about the WotC options.

You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
I'd start by doubting the "lack of validity at the current level" claim, but that's not important.

If he still thinks that a traditional gish-multiclass build isn't going to work at that level, I'd mention the WotC gish-in-a-can options. If I knew about an awesome homebrew gish class, I'd mention that at this stage too.

Again, it's the least amount of work for me.

Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
I'd warn him about Monks sucking, suggest the WotC options, and let him decide what he wants to play. If I knew about an awesome Monk fix, I'd mention that too. Sound familiar?

If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?
What I first and foremost don't like about homebrew is the sometimes huge amount of time that goes into reviewing the whole thing. I already have read/weighed most of the WotC material that's out there, which often doesn't account for much when going through some whole new mechanic.

Then there's the quality problem. Formatting, lack of rules understanding on half of the creator, superfluous mechanics, poor spelling and grammar, no fluff-crunch separation, unfinished ideas, and, somewhere in the back row, power concerns.

If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?
As a player, I rarely request homebrew unless there is something that the DM has pre-approved (or some similar arrangement). Having a closed set of options helps me think during chargen.

As a DM, I have begun to ask people to be sure they actually want to use the class/PrC/spell/whatever before they put it on my desk, and that they have thoroughly read it themselves. I don't mind the thing being long, but I do mind going through a thing that you're not even sure you want in the first place.

If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?[/list]
Fixing the broken bits. They are... kind of many. I still haven't found the motivation to create an actual "creative work". WotC printed more fluff/weird ideas than I could use in a lifetime, it's the mechanics that I keep fiddling with.

And, err, I guess my behemoth of a spellcasting overhaul is my proudest achievement. :smallconfused:

[Jude_H]

I love homebrew.

I love it partially because I'm just sick of dumpster-diving splatbooks for ways to make a concept work, sick of being limited by the options printed in books and sick of the baggage of class systems - packages of abilities, where the things you want may be wrapped in tagalongs and prerequisites that aren't applicable at all.

It's much easier for me to sit down with a DM and say "I want to play a magical acrobatic Errol Flynn-type with a flying ship" and to hash out mechanics in 5-10 minutes than it is to dig through books, piecing a level-by-level progression together that still doesn't quite fit the concept. It's also easier than justifying those builds to groups with more tangible interpretations of the concept of "Classes."

And when a player's put real time and energy into homebrew, it can be very rewarding. Much more than digging someone else's homebrew out of a splatbook.

I've also been playing the same classes for over a decade. It's nice to try something fresh. (This is a bit disingenuous; I haven't played a lot of 3e in the last 5 years. Regardless, I've played the printed classes enough that something new or unused is much more interesting than running reiterations of the same classes and builds.)

Also, it's cheaper. :smalltongue:

[Hunter Killer]

Got in the thread late, but here we go on the OP questions:


Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible?
I stick to printed material as much as possible, and what is more is that I try to limit my selection of splat books to one or two choices. I do this because my favorite classes are casters, and I can't help myself when it comes to optimization.

I find that if I limit my book selection, tell the guy running the game, and ask him to say 'No!' when think about using anything else, I'll end up with a powerful character that doesn't beat the crap out of everyone else.

(That's not trying to toot my own horn, I'm not a master of the system by any means, but I am simply better at building characters than most of the people I have played with.)


As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?
I don't outright ban all homebrew, but I'm very strict about what I allow and what I don't. I have a list about a mile long of official printed material I will not allow, and a stack of papers that contains some great homebrew stuff.

When I evaluate something, be it homebrew or printed, I ask myself "Does this fit my world?" first. I always try to convey a certain atmosphere or feel to my games, so it has to fit the game for me to allow it. Also, in the case of homebew, it has to be well written and not fill a niche printed material does.

I don't review a lot of homebrew that people hand me, unless it really catches my eye as something really, really interesting. Instead, I'll ask them what the general concept is and try to help them build it with printed material.


Specifically:
You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
I would suggest to the player that he play a slightly weaker, printed class. The Healer or Favored Soul would be my suggestions (Although Favored Soul is to Cleric what Sorcerer is to Wizard. It's Tier 2ish, IMHO).

I would choose this option over the others because I feel that a party should be balanced enough for me to ad-hoc encounters. It's tough to do that with a massive imbalance in party power, and I don't have time to sit at home an tailor every encounter to the group.

As noted above, also believe that homebrew is unnecessary when a particular niche is already filled by printed rules. Why do something new when existing material already fits the bill?


You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
I like that a gish is a long-term investment character build with a high payoff at the end. I would tell them to either play the gish-in-a-box character or deal with that fact of gish building and suffer through it.

Why? Because I feel you have to pay the piper before you get to play something as powerful and versatile as a 9th level caster gish, or you have to cut your expectations and play something that's less powerful but more immediately effective.


Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
I would explain to this player why the Monk isn't the greatest choice, but offer to help them optimize it if they're still set on playing it after that. It's their character; They need to play what they think is fun (within reason).

I wouldn't stack the treasure in their favor nor would I allow special character creation considerations (Like free LA), but homebew or houserules might be allowed if the power imbalance in the party warrants it.


If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?

If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?
I'll take this both at once, because I'm a little Column A and a little of Column B.

I do, in part, hold the printed works to be sacred. Like it or not, and for better or worse, the core game of 3.5 D&D is the official printed works. It's not 3.5 when you add homebrew; It's a different animal entirely.

That's not to say that's bad. I don't, and probably will never, play straight 3.5 D&D. However, I like to keep homebrew and houserules to a minimum for various reasons:

1. Duplication of concepts. There's not need for more rules on what's already covers. So you don't get a cohesive class or feat chain and have random abilities that don't exactly fit... So what? Those fringe abilities can make your character interesting.

2. Blatant power grabs. Some, but not all, homebrew is just "I want ability X, but I don't want to spend the feats or class levels or game time to get it" and that's just a crutch for poor building skills. Mastering the existing system to get what you want is just better.

3. I don't like introducing new mechanics that don't draw on the base system. A lot of homebrew introduces this-or-that casting or ability system that's a whole new version of spells, psionics, etc... So it reproduces those systems with a different mechanic.

4. Homebrew or houserules have to be explained to new players. Even (and sometimes especially) seasoned veterans of the 3.5 system. That's time consuming, and eats time that could otherwise be used for play.


If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?
I don't homebrew a lot, but I have occasionally. I do it to tailor certain existing classes to my campaign work or to workout concepts that aren't covered in the printed works.

I've found, though, that mastering certain aspects of the system and becoming more familiar with certain splats often makes this unnecessary. Therefore, I always book dive before I resort to this.

[Fax Celestis]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'training wheels', but I can only think you mean the small and focused size of its spell list, because compared to a lot of other full BAB classes it's no less complex.

Not quite. It's gishy functions are available from low levels, for starters, but it also has the added benefit of not having to jump through PrC after PrC to make yourself into a functional character—"training wheels", if you will.

Non-duskblade gishes tend to look like Wizard/Warblade/Knight Phantom/Jade Phoenix Mage, Sorcerer/Paladin/Spellsword/Abjurant Champion, or crazier, dip-heavy builds, and don't actually get into the gishly stuff until post-5th level. A duskblade gishes from first level and keeps gishing through 20.

[Yora]

As a gm, I almost always go with restricted core only plus my homebrew.

I like things clean and tidy, which means only a small number of races and classes (and feats and spells), and I also like non-generic settings. So I try to pick as much as possible from the core rules that fits the setting, and then make up what is required to fill the blanks.

[Tyndmyr]

It's much easier for me to sit down with a DM and say "I want to play a magical acrobatic Errol Flynn-type with a flying ship" and to hash out mechanics in 5-10 minutes than it is to dig through books, piecing a level-by-level progression together that still doesn't quite fit the concept. It's also easier than justifying those builds to groups with more tangible interpretations of the concept of "Classes."

I'm...not quite certain how this is a hard concept to have in the regular mechanics....

Errol Flynn? Race: Human. Place stats and roleplay accordingly.

Magical? Select a magical class.

Acrobatic? Train appropriate skills. If they're not class skills...you're human. Endless fixes abound for this.

Flying Ship? Buy one.

Im having difficulty imagining how adding a custom class creation to this would speed it up. You're going to be doing exactly the same thing for all the non-class choices anyhow.

[Jude_H]

Im having difficulty imagining how adding a custom class creation to this would speed it up. You're going to be doing exactly the same thing for all the non-class choices anyhow.
I basically meant a Dex/Cha-based gish.

It's possible with the Bard, but there's a lot of baggage in terms of singing and knowledges that will probably conflict with the concept, and the result isn't going to be able to generate damage without dumpster-diving sourcebooks (standard IC/DFI uses 7/8 different splats).

It's possible with certain Sorcerer gishes, but they typically have to decide to either be magical or swashbucklery or entirely inept at both until higher levels. I've seen too many concepts dissolve before their mechanics matured to think the waiting period is reasonable.

Alternatively, it's possible to throw down the desired BA/HD/Skills/Saves framework, tossing out a theme for spells, hashing out the 2-3 defining abilities for the character and sprinkling in minor fluff abilities. This requires fewer out-of-game resources, omits unwanted baggage and removes limits on players' freedom of character design.

Admittedly, this isn't the best example - classes like the Duskblade or Magus could just be swapped around to be Charisma-based casters with slightly altered spell/skill lists - but the issues I've mentioned (unwanted baggage in builds, near-comprehensive system knowledge required for abuild, builds maturing outside the campaign's scope) have been common in my 3e games, and are relatively easy to avoid by writing (rather than building) toward a concept.

[Tyndmyr]

I basically meant a Dex/Cha-based gish.

It's possible with the Bard, but there's a lot of baggage in terms of singing and knowledges that will probably conflict with the concept, and the result isn't going to be able to generate damage without dumpster-diving sourcebooks (standard IC/DFI uses 7/8 different splats).

It's possible with certain Sorcerer gishes, but they typically have to decide to either be magical or swashbucklery or entirely inept at both until higher levels. I've seen too many concepts dissolve before their mechanics matured to think the waiting period is reasonable.

Ah, see that's entirely different. That's a mechanical requirement, not a character concept. I suppose my first question would be why you wanted a dex/cha based gish.

Depending on optimization level, Battle Sorcerer might be an option. If not sufficiently stabby, well, Eldritch Knight isn't a hard class to find or qualify for.

Yes, it can be made more optimal with splatbook diving, certainly...but essentially everything can be. It's not at all essential to the concept, even with mechanical restrictions.

Edit: Or hell, just take bard, and dive into a class that doesn't advance singing. You don't HAVE to sing, just because it's an option.

[Necroticplague]

I'm very homebrew-friendly, as long as reading it doesn't set of my munchkindar to much (yes, we can detect others of our kind:smallwink:). The way I view it, all 'brew and all official classes go through the same process, so their isn't really a big difference. Someone thinks "hey, this idea sounds cool", they build mechanics for it, it gets peer reviewed, then it is submitted to the individual DM for use in that campaign. So they way I see it, homebrew can end up either much worse, or much better than official work, because some 'brews are labors of love, with their makers quietly working away out of how much they like the idea (much like free webcomics), while others are spur of the moment decisions, made with little thought.

[prufock]

I normally stick with published material for 2 reasons:
1 - Less work on my part; I don't have to analyze, edit, or otherwise spend my time looking over someone's homebrew for balance.
2 - Everyone is on even ground. We all have access to the same material. Homebrew means people are creating their own material, so it tips the scales slightly.

Generally there is enough official published material to meet everyone's needs. What with alternate class features, books packed full of prestige classes, base classes, feats, spells, and so on, there is plenty of material to use without resorting to creating our own.

HOWEVER, that is not to say I don't allow homebrewed material, or even sometimes use it myself. Feats, for instance, I am very likely to accept or use, because it's a lot easier to judge them at a glance than a whole class. Whatever the case, any homebrew must be made available for all players.

[Gnoman]

I rarely allow homebrew in my campaigns for a very simple reason. I can easily search for "Wizard 3.5" or "Swordsage 3.5" and get an idea on issues that might show up in a few minutes. Doing that with some obscure homebrew that some player hands me ten minutes before character creation is much harder, thus the only way to find the crack in the design is much less practical.

[panaikhan]

As a DM and as a player, I don't use homebrew.
Simply because no-one in our group has the skill to come up with it themselves or the resources to find other people's.

The only exceptions to this are custom magical items and original spells.
Sinse we have all DM'd at some point, any particular item or spell needs a majority "balance" vote (at least 3 OK's, one of which must be the current DM).

[shadow_archmagi]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?


I've had a couple occasions where a player asked for homebrew and I approved it, but on the whole, I try to discourage it.



Specifically:[list] You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?


I'd suggest a weaker divine caster that already exists, or just to play the cleric softly. No need for rules rewrites here.



You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?


Duskblade is a caster-fighter. If that's too blasty for him, there's also the Swordsage, another great caster-fighter. If that doesn't work, there's always the Dragon Shaman, I think that has a bit of melee. Heck, if you're looking for melee and buffs, why not just play a cleric?



Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?


I love the unarmed swordsage. I might also suggest some multiclassing with barbarian, to better fit the brawler sterotype, even if it isn't totally optimized.



If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?


1. I don't want to take the time to sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of homebrew.
1A. Lots of homebrew is really bad in terms of gameplay mechanics and poorly defined abilities and too much or too little power and so forth.
1B. Lots of homebrew is really badly written. Spelling errors everywhere, eeugh. Makes it very unpleasant to read.
2. I'm already familiar with most published material. If a player asks to be a warlock, I have a general idea of what Warlocks do.
3. The hive mind known as the internet can offer support and advice regarding published classes. If I'm not an expert on the duskblade, I can pull up the Duskblade Handbook and see that a Duskblade's primary stats are strength and intelligence, the best ability they get is arcane channeling, and so on.

Thus, if a *player* has already run through the grain field, and asks me to identify a specific class as being wheat or chaff, I go ahead and take a look at it, since I'm familiar enough with the game now that I can make judgements on what is or isn't a terrible idea.

[Fax Celestis]

I rarely allow homebrew in my campaigns for a very simple reason. I can easily search for "Wizard 3.5" or "Swordsage 3.5" and get an idea on issues that might show up in a few minutes. Doing that with some obscure homebrew that some player hands me ten minutes before character creation is much harder, thus the only way to find the crack in the design is much less practical.

...generally there is commentary on the thread. Ask your player for the entire thread, not just the class.

[Tyndmyr]

...generally there is commentary on the thread. Ask your player for the entire thread, not just the class.

This is unfortunately not true for all homebrew. Like the infamously bad D&D wiki...

And often the commentary is not sufficient to fully judge it. Feedback is helpful, but it certainly isn't guaranteed to catch everything.

[Amphetryon]

This is unfortunately not true for all homebrew. Like the infamously bad D&D wiki...

And often the commentary is not sufficient to fully judge it. Feedback is helpful, but it certainly isn't guaranteed to catch everything.

Indeed, it's often most useful only when you have a frame of reference for the commentary. If the person commenting on the homebrew is of the "OMG Monks are teh uber!" school of thought, his feedback on a given homebrew will be vastly different than the commentator who is used to seeing the Batman Wizard and the potion-throwing Rogue at her table.

[Arundel]

I don't use homebrew. First off I find it difficult to have a character concept that both fits a game and can't be represented by first party sources. 3.5 already has a disturbing amount of choice, no need to add more. While a single piece of homebrew may be balanced in isolation, it may balance oddly in the wild. Some of the most broken things rely on unusual interactions between usual things.

More importantly, it limits a good deal of my resources. If I need help with a published base class I can simply start a thread on these forums "I don't understand Binder/Totemist/King of Smack" and get a decent evaluation (with possibly an enjoyable argument) within the hour. With homebrew the base of approachable knowledge is insignificant in comparison.

[PersonMan]

This is unfortunately not true for all homebrew. Like the infamously bad D&D wiki...

Or even some threads here, which get quite a few views but no replies. Others get a few("oh, hey, cool. I like feature X, it's sort of like Y") that aren't useful, while some get a few that are good, but are only 1 other person's opinion, etc.

EDIT: Woops. A few days over the line.

[missmvicious]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

Specifically: You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?
If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?
If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

Hopefully not better placed in the homebrew section, as I'm looking for opinions about homebrew, not actual homebrew works. If a mod thinks it's misplaced, feel free to move.

1. I like the Cleric. He's actually my favorite PC in the game so I wouldn't mess with perfection, though I've made an NPC class variant on Cleric called "Priest" who has no armor proficiency, only carries the preferred weapon of her god, and can Spontaneous Cast Heal or Harm spells (depending on alignment) and all Domain Spells germane to their caster level, but cannot cast any other Clerical spells. This declawed them enough to make them a decent temple-dwelling NPC.

2. Gish-in-a-box, and stick to the rule-book. But honestly, this is because I don't have any experience hosting a campaign with a Gish in it. I always try it by the book for the first few times, and then make humble tweaks if I don't like the way the book did it. Monsters as PCs tend to be OP even if you go by the book, but this isn't really a problem as long as everyone is OP the same way... you just toss stronger opponents at them until the challenge is fun, but not too easy or downright impossible.

3. I think Monks make awkward brawlers without a home-brew design (since they are Lawful by design), but there's a lot of other ways to get there just by using the rules in the book. Of course, one of my friends built house rules on a Boxer based on a hodgepodge of rules from Fighter/Monk/Barbarian and even set up a Prestige Class: Palooka (which would essentially be a Brawler) which I really liked a lot. I've thought about getting a copy of his notes to add to my list of Standard House Rules.

4. I like home-brews, but I prefer to try them out as NPCs first so I can get a feel for how they work in a campaign setting. Often times, people accidently try to turn home-brew PCs into gods just because it somehow fit into their backstory. Even I created a devilishly OP'd home-brew Level 10 Psionic/Kineticist-Bard character by replacing all of his psionic abilities for one super-powered version of Control Object which allows him to use it on multiple daggers at a time (think Kankurou from Naruto, but with knives instead of puppets). He put all his Perform ranks into Dancing and used that as a type of combat style, which made him nearly impossible to grapple, flank, or catch flat-footed. The idea was cool, but impractical in a campaign setting because it made him a one man force of destruction that no one could hit (no need for my teammates). In the end, I made him an NPC, de-fanged him some and have been using him as a recurring character ever since.

5. I started home-brewing after my first session of my first campaign. In a very entry-level way, you could say my very first character was a home-brew. Some of the characters (like non-LG Paladins who don't want to become Blackguards, or spell-casters who want to become Magic Item crafters) I've kept and made permanent house rules on how to create them. But I definitely know the dangers of home-brewing and believe that there at least need to be strict standards and practices for doing so (and the final character has to be approved by both DM and the other PCs), or else you end up with a god amongst ants and the rest of the party won't have any fun playing with you.

[Gotterdammerung]

Generally: do you use it as a player when possible, or do you try to stick to printed material when possible? As a DM, do you outright ban all homebrew, allow a select list of your favorites, or offer to review things your players bring up?

Specifically: You have a party of a Scout, Beguiler, and Warblade. Your fourth player wants to play a divine spellcaster, but feels that clerics are too strong for the current group. Would you allow him to find a slightly weaker class, work with him to trim the cleric's power, or just insist that he play a cleric or similar class? What makes you choose that answer over one of the others?
You are running a 4th level game, and your new player says he wants to play a gish, but has concerns over its validity at the current level. Would you suggest a gish-in-a-box like the Battle Sorcerer, maybe work with a homebrew suggestion such as this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192259) (tweaked for your group's personal balance), or insist that if he wishes to play a gish, he allows the character to grow into the role normally? Why?
Your player wishes to play a monk, with the intent to make him a brawler. Do you allow him to play a monk, suggest something like an Unarmed Swordsage, or find/make a fix that ups the monk's power level while giving it a more martial bent? Why?
If you dislike homebrew: What makes you feel this way? Do you view the printed works as sacred? Do you find all homebrew to be poorly formatted power grabs? Or do you simply not have the time or interest to look over someone else's work? Something else entirely?
If you like homebrew: How much homebrew is too much? As a player, is there a point when you feel you should simply play one of the classes already made, or is it okay to continually find something out there that's different? As a DM, when someone suggests homebrew, do you have a limit to how much you'll look over? Do you skim or discard suggestions entirely if you find something you don't like?
If you're a homebrewer: What made you start? What, in your opinion, is your greatest accomplishment? How have your works bettered the 3.5 system, in your opinion?

Hopefully not better placed in the homebrew section, as I'm looking for opinions about homebrew, not actual homebrew works. If a mod thinks it's misplaced, feel free to move.

In my games, everything is for review. Homebrew does tend to be conveniently overpowered often, but it really isn't any worse than the occasional unbalanced printed material. I balance all the material before i let it into the game.

I have a habit of boosting weak classes up, leaving strong classes alone, and nerfing unbalanced glitchy classes. So if someone wanted to play a cleric but was scared it would be overpowered for the group, i would tell them not to worry and to play what they wanted.

I heavily reward builds for roleplay. I don't reward builds for pure power. And i'm experienced enough to notice the difference.

I don't believe the tier system is a credible source to measure the final power lvl of a party. It is just a simple comparison of the solo power of base classes without prestige or multiclassing. In reality, people multiclass a lot and prestige class a lot. And the weaknesses of many classes are covered by the strengths of other party members, making for a balanced effective party.
So as a result, i would not try and talk a player out of playing a lower tier class like monk.

I like homebrew well enough. The game was designed to be homebrew. The only reason to be anal about only using printed books would be if you were playing some sort of world wide living campaign and needed consistency between several different GMs. Many people decide to only rely on printed official books because they aren't very experienced at managing player power levels and got beat over the head by a homebrew rule they let in one time. But the game itself was intended to be customized.

As long as you have enough clerical skills (that means skills at cataloging and writing stuff down), there is no such thing as too much homebrew.
However, if you are lazy and don't keep good track of all your sources and homebrewed rule changes, then you will end up creating a nightmare situation where rules arguments are common and take a long time to resolve.

[missmvicious]

As long as you have enough clerical skills (that means skills at cataloging and writing stuff down), there is no such thing as too much homebrew.
However, if you are lazy and don't keep good track of all your sources and homebrewed rule changes, then you will end up creating a nightmare situation where rules arguments are common and take a long time to resolve.

Which is where the Surgeon General's Warning on Home-Brewing applies most heavily.

I don't know any DMs personally (not saying they don't exist) who spend a great deal of time cataloging their PCs stats and home-brewed abilities, and when something does go wrong, it can bog down a game with bickering and rule-book perusing on a good day, and tear the game apart on a bad one, but when used correctly, it can make the world you create seem all the more real, which is definitely worth it. But when it comes to all rules, straight from the book, the house, or on the fly, I always submit it to what I believe is the DM's golden rule:

Keep it fun.

The game, like all games, should be fun. If the characters are frustrated because of an unbalanced home-brew, or if keeping all those notes on hand is stressing you out, call a break on the session, strip out the unnecessary bits and brake it down to a level in which you feel comfortable, and reconvene on your next appointed session day after you've had to time reset the campaign. The game isn't supposed to make the DM or the players miserable. I love DMing, and my laptop is full of notes, maps, rules, scripts, excerpts from rule-books, bookmarked links to website resources, etc. I almost never have less than 12 windows on my screen when I DM a campaign. But that's the kind of DM I am. One of my favorite DMs I've ever played for had a tiny notepad for tracking initiative (and for hastily jotting a note), a set of dice, and a Monster Manual ready for every campaign... and that was it. I don't know how he did it, but his stories and NPCs were always consistent, and the gameplay was almost always fluid and realistic. When he tried my method, he became quickly frustrated and the campaign screeched to a halt. When I tried his, I bumbled and fumbled my way through the campaign, until I finally decided to adjourn the session for 30 min so I could get my notes together.

Long story... less long, if you aren't the kind of DM who wants to spend all necessary time monitoring and protecting the balance of home-brews, then stick to the rule books, and don't feel pressured to be that kind of DM either, because it's a perfectly acceptable way to play the game, and you can curtail a lot of questions about "Yeah, but what about this? Could I add this to my character?" with "What does the rule-book say?" and be done with the conversation.