Homebrew Powers?

[MesiDoomstalker]

I know that in 3.5 the rules allowed custom, ie "homebrewed" spells, powers and maneuvers (and feats I believe) using pre-made spells/powers/maneuvers as guidelines. I was wondering if it was ever stated in a source book that someone could develop their own powers and take them in place of those printed? I know its technically possible, I just want to know if its stated in the text. Is it limited to say Wizards (and their like) creating new spells in their book? Likewise is creating custom rituals allowed by the rules?

[Kurald Galain]

I've never seen any 4E rule mention the ability to create your own powers or rituals. The 3E rules on it are extremely brief (just one line stating that you can, without any methods or guidelines), although 2E had a long section on it. That said, why should that stop you? Just use an existing power of the same level as the basis, and go from there.

[Inyssius Tor]

I know that in 3.5 the rules allowed custom, ie "homebrewed" spells, powers and maneuvers (and feats I believe) using pre-made spells/powers/maneuvers as guidelines. I was wondering if it was ever stated in a source book that someone could develop their own powers and take them in place of those printed? I know its technically possible, I just want to know if its stated in the text.

I don't think it is, no. 4e spends more time telling you to reflavor and modify existing powers than brewing new ones, although obviously there's no reason whatsoever you couldn't.

[Tengu_temp]

Do you need a rule that says "yes, you can create homebrew stuff"? Just use existing powers as baseline and ask your DM for permission.

[Tengu_temp]

Do you need a rule that says "yes, you can create homebrew stuff"? Just use existing powers as baseline and ask your DM for permission.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Do you need a rule that says "yes, you can create homebrew stuff"? Just use existing powers as baseline and ask your DM for permission.

When your DM is "extremely RAW" then the only way to include Homebrew is RAW sepcifically allowing the chance for homebrew, then yes I do need a rule allowing homebrew.

[Oracle_Hunter]

When your DM is "extremely RAW" then the only way to include Homebrew is RAW sepcifically allowing the chance for homebrew, then yes I do need a rule allowing homebrew.
...does he let your characters eat despite a lack of rules for eating? :smallconfused:

If your DM isn't going to let you homebrew then no amount of RAWhammer is going to make him let you. This is a real-life problem; address it in real life.

Ask him why he doesn't want to let you homebrew a power. Perhaps the reason is something y'all can work around -- if he is uncomfortable with unbalancing the game, give him initial approval (which he should have anyways) and then allow him to veto the power later if he doesn't like how it's working out.

[Kurald Galain]

When your DM is "extremely RAW" then the only way to include Homebrew is RAW sepcifically allowing the chance for homebrew, then yes I do need a rule allowing homebrew.

What exactly do you want to homebrew, and might the same result perhaps be obtained by simply changing the name of an existing power or feat?

[MesiDoomstalker]

...does he let your characters eat despite a lack of rules for eating? :smallconfused:

If your DM isn't going to let you homebrew then no amount of RAWhammer is going to make him let you. This is a real-life problem; address it in real life.

Ask him why he doesn't want to let you homebrew a power. Perhaps the reason is something y'all can work around -- if he is uncomfortable with unbalancing the game, give him initial approval (which he should have anyways) and then allow him to veto the power later if he doesn't like how it's working out.

Due to the clause in 3.5 allowing custum spells and what not we were allowed back then. I was just curious if such a "rule" existed in 4e since we recently switched. The DM is very RAW heavy but is not opposed to homebrew, just prefers not to. She knows the rules as written and introducing homebrew allows loop holes, abuse and what not (intentionally or not) so she prefers to keep it in the realm she is familiar with. Complex homebrews are far less likely to be allowed than simple ones because simple ones are easier to predict without too much thought. Having RAW to back up my attempts at homebrew will make it more likely that she will accept it (assuming its properly balanced).


What exactly do you want to homebrew, and might the same result perhaps be obtained by simply changing the name of an existing power or feat?

Nothing as of yet, just something to keep in mind. I tend to make homebrew specifically tailored to my situation and our game is on pause at the moment (and is fairly early on so I'm not sure where I need help yet).

[Ashdate]

I've got to echo Kuraid here; even the classes that have poor support offer six or more options for each at-will/encounter/daily per level. Why are those options insufficient?

Again, we're not talking about changing the name/flavour text. We're talking about rules text here. And this rules text is really important, not only because of what it allows (or doesn't allow) but because classes are generally given powers that match their role and power source. With a striker for instance, you're generally not going to find a ranged burst attack that slows enemies because that's not what strikers are supposed to be doing. Rogues aren't generally going to have attacks that deal radiant damage because their power source is martial, not divine.

Also keep in mind that "multiclass" feats can allow you to get specific powers from outside your class, if they seem more mechanically appropriate.

Not to discourage you from "homebrewing", but I think the concern I (and perhaps others) have is that you're doing it for the wrong reasons. If it's for flavour reasons, then you need to justify why the mechanical framework of an existing power isn't suitable for modifications. If it's because there is a "gap" in the idea for your character that you think you needs to be filled, then the short answer is that the gap is probably there on purpose.

If you still feel the need to homebrew, my suggestion is figure out which power you want to replace (i.e. Wizard Daily 5) and see if you can't cobble together a suitable power by mixing and matching what's currently in the slot.

[Adoendithas]

There is of course some homebrew which is more along the lines of refluffing, such as changing damage keywords. Let's say you want a weapon that blasts enemies with poison. Take a flaming weapon and replace "fire" with "poison". I doubt your DM would object.

[quillbreaker]

Just out of curiosity, are you trying to homebrew an at-will, an encounter, or a daily? I don't think I'd *ever* let a player homebrew an at-will.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I will state this clearly: I am not currently attempting to homebrew anything. My current game is on hiatus until we have a time slot and location that will work for all involved. I simply was curious if such clause was included in text in case I decided to homebrew and in case my DM was not willing to allow the homebrew on non-balance issues. It was simply seeing if I have something to use in my defense if the need arises. I expected this thread to have 2 or 3 responeses and be done saying "yes or no."

[Oracle_Hunter]

I will state this clearly: I am not currently attempting to homebrew anything. My current game is on hiatus until we have a time slot and location that will work for all involved. I simply was curious if such clause was included in text in case I decided to homebrew and in case my DM was not willing to allow the homebrew on non-balance issues. It was simply seeing if I have something to use in my defense if the need arises. I expected this thread to have 2 or 3 responeses and be done saying "yes or no."
Ah.

Then no.

Still, the apparently slavish dedication to the rules of your DM is curious and merited comment.

[Ashdate]

With all due respect Mesi, the question (and your response) sounds less like you're interested in working with your DM to create something thematic and flavourful, and more like you're trying to find a loophole to force your DM to approve a particular power. In my mind, that is acting in bad faith.

Even in the case of 3.5, there fluff about "personalizing spells" is pretty clear (to my memory) that any such move is subject to DM approval. When you say the rules "allowed them", you're technically incorrect, as changes to spells on a mechanical level (except through feats and class abilities and such) are not allowed RAW. They were, and remain, house rules.