Whats the general View on Homebrew?

[Masakan]

Basically how do people feel about things not written in the books?

[Eldan]

Very encouraged. There's some fantastically creative material out there and with even some minimal selection process, it's hard to end up with something more broken than a lot of the official stuff.

[KillianHawkeye]

There is no generally accepted viewpoint. Some people like using homebrew, some people don't. The assumption on these boards is using RAW unless otherwise specified. But really, using homebrewed stuff is going to vary from table to table.

[ace rooster]

I would say not encouraged, but for some ideas required. In general if something can be done without, then it should be. The exception is when a build is obviously unbalanced, but the only way to build a PC around an idea. For example, I considered a warforged paladin that had a gold dragon effigy as a mount. At the level I got access to the effigy it was massively overpowered, dealing far more damage than me, and granting a fly and swim speed. All that was ever going to happen was that the DM would kill it off, leaving me out of pocket and out of theme. Instead we hacked together a progression that kept it a bit more balanced, while also making it less of a catastrophe if it gets disabled.

I think the big thing is the difference between "I would like to play a PC like this, here is what I came up with rules wise", and "here is something I found on the internet". As a DM I would try to work with the first, but would need a very good reason to OK the second.

[JeminiZero]

There is no generally accepted viewpoint. Some people like using homebrew, some people don't. The assumption on these boards is using RAW unless otherwise specified. But really, using homebrewed stuff is going to vary from table to table.
Pretty much this. In general though, many DMs are wary of homebrew. Some are wary about accidentally letting something game-breaking into their game. Also, some homebrew creates an entirely new subsystem, and reading through all that text is hard work.

Around the PbP on these boards, I would say guesstimate* that around 1 in 2-3 accept homebrew. On Mythweavers PbP, the figure** probably drops to something like 1 in 10.

*This guesstimate may not be reliable.
**Nor this one.

[weckar]

I think it varies heavily by homebrew type. In general, I find homebrew spells are more acceptable than homebrew feats, which in turn are more accepted than homebrew classes which are still more accepted than homebrew races.

[Alex12]

I think it varies heavily by homebrew type. In general, I find homebrew spells are more acceptable than homebrew feats, which in turn are more accepted than homebrew classes which are still more accepted than homebrew races.

Something like that.
The one exception, IMHO, is a feat for something that should logically be able to be accomplished with experience/training, or if it's a variant of another feat.
A homebrew feat that allows Tibbits to use spells in cat form the way Druids have Natural Spell? I am more than okay with this. A feat that allows you to apply Corpsecrafter feats to existing undead? Totally fine. Power Attack for ranged weapons? Go for it.

[Anxe]

I'm generally okay with it. I like to take a look first before it gets into my campaign, but I prefer that for official sources as well.

[sideswipe]

personally no homebrew or dragon mag classes, feats or races as they tend to just be broken. saying that, at my table i am the only optimiser in any way. so occasionally we will let a feat or base race variant for the others so that the gain some power, i just find a lot of homebrew breaks the intentions of the game. for example i saw a thread on homebrew flaws that made the flaws 5-10 times more debilitating then the feat would give you. this was silly. and some classes that just say "add these two pretty good classes abilities together".

that being said, i would, as a dm, allow more homebrew, 3rd party and drag mag on martial characters then on casters where i would allow none (unless partial caster). and only on a case by case basis. most homebrew on casting classes is just retarded.

my wizard no longer needs spellbooks
my cleric now has most arcane spells cast as divine.
my wizard uses dex/str as its casting stat

silly things that make them just too much.

[Ruethgar]

I use WotC published homebrew as though it were official content, I also use a lot of Giantitp homebrew based on the general feel of the balance based on comments and my own perception. I try to avoid D&D wiki for the most part and treat all other homebrew as 3rd party in that it must be reviewed for balance on a case by case basis with fairly high scrutiny.

Edit: Also if something can be reproduced with an alteration of fluff or by another source(even third party), I will likely prohibit the homebrew version in lue of the published unless it just has rave reviews.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally, I love using homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions).

The biggest issue, as I see it, is familiarity. After all, WotC's official material gives us Monks and Druids, Natural Spell and Weapon Focus. WotC doesn't know crap about balance (at least not in their early books). But most of us are aware of the issues involved with official material, whereas homebrew is a bit more of a risk. The DM has to read the material, hopefully commentary on it, and still might need to adjust things based on how it works in-game. On the plus side, a lot of good 'brewers hold themselves to better standards than anything WotC published.

[137beth]

I think it varies heavily by homebrew type. In general, I find homebrew spells are more acceptable than homebrew feats, which in turn are more accepted than homebrew classes which are still more accepted than homebrew races.

I'd add in that classes which create a new subsystem are usually less accepted than classes which work with existing subsystems. Usually because it is a lot more work for DMs to read through, learn, and evaluate a new subsystem.

[Masakan]

Tell me this then, would any of you consider this class broken?
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Mageknight,_Tirr_%283.5e_Class%29

or either of these races broken?

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Catfolk,_Tirr_%283.5e_Race%29
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dragonkin,_Tirr_%283.5e_Race%29

[ericgrau]

Ugh that site has horrible homebrew b/c no one is checking it, and it's not clearly labelled as homebrew. But let's see.

Mageknight: Fort & ref saves need to be moved one step down. It looks like he swapped spells known with spells per day. It gets full casting until level 10, then it suddenly stops, making this class stronger than gestalt levels 1-10 and then suck later. Should be reduced to 2/3 casting. The special abilities are wonky and might give him as high as a +10 or so. May be better to go to a flat +4 or int modifier, whichever is lower. And you may want to push it to level 2 or 3 to prevent dips. The rest is fine, but it looks like all he did was copy paste the sorcerer and give it medium BAB and a few special abilities.

Catfolk: Should be LA 1, but with high optimization it might be ok at LA 0. Other than that seems fine. Didn't read fluff out of laziness and b/c I didn't like the pictures. And note that 3.5 already has a catfolk which may be better.

Dragonkin: About LA 2. Maybe 2.5, or in high optimization LA 1. They're a bit close to half dragons though.

[Masakan]

Ugh that site has horrible homebrew b/c no one is checking it, and it's not clearly labelled as homebrew. But let's see.

Mageknight: Fort & ref saves need to be moved one step down. It looks like he swapped spells known with spells per day. It gets full casting until level 10, then it suddenly stops, making this class stronger than gestalt levels 1-10 and then suck later. Should be reduced to 2/3 casting. The special abilities are wonky and might give him as high as a +10 or so. May be better to go to a flat +4 or int modifier, whichever is lower. And you may want to push it to level 2 or 3 to prevent dips. The rest is fine, but it looks like all he did was copy paste the sorcerer and give it medium BAB and a few special abilities.

Catfolk: Should be LA 1, but with high optimization it might be ok at LA 0. Other than that seems fine. Didn't read fluff out of laziness and b/c I didn't like the pictures. And note that 3.5 already has a catfolk which may be better.

Dragonkin: About LA 2. Maybe 2.5, or in high optimization LA 1. They're a bit close to half dragons though.

Really? i thought the catfolk would be balanced due to the fact that despite being fast and very attractable, they arent very durable and easily distracted

As for dragon kin, the low dexterity and abysmal charisma should make it more specialized than anything. Shes basically good at smashing things but sucks at anything even remotely related to diplomacy.

Say what you wan,t a race that only amounts to a +2 doesn't warrant a LA at all.

[Flashy]

Really? i thought the catfolk would be balanced due to the fact that despite being fast and very attractable, they arent very durable and easily distracted

As for dragon kin, the low dexterity and abysmal charisma should make it more specialized than anything. Shes basically good at smashing things but sucks at anything even remotely related to diplomacy.

Say what you wan,t a race that only amounts to a +2 doesn't warrant a LA at all.

The Sarli catfolk variant is probably one of the most OP player races I've ever seen. A +8 net on ability scores, the ability to burrow at half base movement speed, scent, +6 to jump and move silently, along with an additional 1d6 damage for any class? With no downsides whatsoever? The Coug'r are a little different since their application is more limited, but the additional power points for a psionic class is INSANE powerful.

As far as the Dragonkin go you're quite right, they are highly specialized. The problem is that a lot of players aren't going to care about sucking at diplomacy, and it can be dangerous to allow access to a race that easy to min-max.

[Phelix-Mu]

Basically how do people feel about things not written in the books?

Here's a few simple guidelines for using homebrew as a DM (or approving its use by your players, which you should always approach carefully):

1.) Check your level of system mastery: As a DM, it's important to be realistic about your level of personal understanding of the rules, their implications, and the ways in which they interact in strange and unexpected ways. Also, your ability to adapt quickly when it turns out the rules don't do what you thought they did or when a player comes up with a crazy exploit (this is basically guaranteed to happen to every DM at some point). Weeding through homebrew to find the grain among the chaff is a process of trying to predict the implications of changes to the ruleset and new variables introduced to the equation. This is rarely simple, but if you stick to things like quick fixes of core classes, simple houserules or series of houserules to tweak the system in a focused manner, then even a fairly inexperienced DM can probably handle that. For entirely new classes that use new subsystems or revisions designed to significantly alter the balance of the tiers, you should probably be much more careful (or just as careful and more experienced at handling stuff on the fly).

2.) Try the Shallow End First: Before you do a campaign with all homebrew, look for bits and pieces that can be integrated into a more standard campaign. It's important to get a feel for what constitutes good homebrew, and if you splurge all at once, you might end up with an entire campaign that needs to be scrapped.

3.) Check the internet: Crowdsourcing for advice on what has been used, group consensus, and even peer reviews of your own or less-used homebrew...these are all excellent ideas. Here and elsewhere, the community can be extremely helpful, as the level of collective experience is immense, and a great many excellent DMs have trodden this path before you. That being said, the community can't know your own table and your own players. The DM is the final and best judge of what is best for their game, and should collaborate closely with their players in deciding what is suitable for a given campaign, and what is not.

My extended sig has some of my favorite homebrew, as well as some of my own (very meager, WIP, PEACH). Go out there and look up some well-reviewed stuff and try it out for some one-shot sessions. Check out the Homebrew Exchange on this site, which I hope is still running. Have fun. One of the best things about 3e and OGL is that the ruleset is huge, full of stuff that doesn't work, full of inspiration for better stuff, and full of room for expansion into new areas (magitech, future worlds, improved martial classes, better epic-level rules...the list is endless).

[Masakan]

The Sarli catfolk variant is probably one of the most OP player races I've ever seen. A +8 net on ability scores, the ability to burrow at half base movement speed, scent, +6 to jump and move silently, along with an additional 1d6 damage for any class? With no downsides whatsoever?

As far as the Coug'r go their application is more limited but the additional power points for a psionic class is INSANE powerful.

I'm using the common varient though...

[Flickerdart]

Personally I don't like homebew, but as has been mentioned, there really isn't a prevailing opinion. In discussions in this particular section, it's generally accepted that 1st party content (that is, stuff published by WoTC directly) is included in its entirety to the exclusion of 3rd party sources (unless bans or 3rd party books are explicitly mentioned first). Dragon Magazine and Dragonlance kind of toes the line in that regard. This is because people are more familiar with 1st party content, whereas 3rd party and homebrew stuff is often obscure and it's hard to talk about anything when someone's citing a book that only came out in 100 copies, in Spanish, and nobody but the poster has one.

I'd say that there's something of a homebrew hierarchy though - "fixes" to existing classes are most accepted, since the problems with the original are part of the accepted canon, so it's easy to see if the fix works or not. Next come prestige classes, feats, and spells, mostly because they're shorter and more modular with 1st party content. Straightforward base classes are next, and new subsystems are at the bottom of the ladder, because they require the most work from the DM to evaluate and integrate into the campaign.

[Flashy]

Even the common variant has problems though. The skill bonuses are huge, as is the scent ability, especially since I don't think I've ever encountered a roll to not be distracted. It's also a pretty easy race to min max, there's a reason none of the races in the PHB give a bonus of more than +2.

[Anxe]

Yeah. Mageknight looks like a really cool alternate version of the bard. I like that. Catfolk and Dragonkin look like the LA was forgotten on them...

Things can be too underpowered on the DnD wiki too. Mageknight might skirt that line? Seems close enough to base classes to me though.

There's also a flavor issue to some campaigns. Some campaigns might require some homebrew to function. Like if there are no gods how do clerics and healing work? Maybe the only type of healing magic comes from the mageknight class instead!

[Pluto!]

I love homebrew, with the caveat that it needs to be examined and is open to tweaking by the DM/group. Same applies for 1st and 3rd party publications, but I generally treat them as less flexible. I think there are a lot of players who've gotten a much better sense of how the system works and is balanced than the WotC writers did, especially the early publications.

Of the links, the Mage Knight looks close to something I'd allow, but I'd spread its spellcasting progression out more evenly (since it's basically just Sorcerer++ through the early game, and Sorcerer is already a powerhouse), put its Fort and Reflex saves on an actual progression and put a bonus type and a duration on Size Up, just to make it work more intuitively.

Those races are ridiculous. Unless you think Anthro-Bat is the baseline against which races should be designed, you could cut all the ability bonuses down by 2 apiece and still be in the playable range for LA 0.

[Mcdt2]

As my sig would suggest, I have a bit of an... obsession... with homebrew. As it currently stands, the games at my table are about 90% homebrew. Funnily enough, Fighter is the only class at my table not to have very extensive fixes (I gave him good Will progression, considering changing it to just being "pick 2 saves, those have good progression"). Fighter feats on the other hand, I've altered extensively (based off this (/watch?v=EBPmi-C2KRM) project), which I find mostly solves the issue. I have fixed versions for all other classes (Special note goes to Grod_The_Giant's and T.G. Oskar's brew, which makes up about 3/4 of the classes I use), or have replaced them with alternatives (Grod's List Caster Project for wizards/sorcerors for example).

About the only non-homebrew I am currently using is, funnily enough, 3rd Party Pathfinder, mainly Dreamscarred Presses' Psionics, and the Occultist by Radiance House. I do allow certain Paizo stuff, like alchemist and gunslinger, but no one really has had any interest in using them.

[Masakan]

I love homebrew, with the caveat that it needs to be examined and is open to tweaking by the DM/group. Same applies for 1st and 3rd party publications, but I generally treat them as less flexible. I think there are a lot of players who've gotten a much better sense of how the system works and is balanced than the WotC writers did, especially the early publications.

Of the links, the Mage Knight looks close to something I'd allow, but I'd spread its spellcasting progression out more evenly (since it's basically just Sorcerer++ through the early game, and Sorcerer is already a powerhouse), put its Fort and Reflex saves on an actual progression and put a bonus type and a duration on Size Up, just to make it work more intuitively.

Those races are ridiculous. Unless you think Anthro-Bat is the baseline against which races should be designed, you could cut all the ability bonuses down by 2 apiece and still be in the playable range for LA 0.

Should the penalties stay?

[Ansem]

No homebrew, practically anything you could want is already in the game and you'll just have to find a way to get it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As my sig would suggest, I have a bit of an... obsession... with homebrew. As it currently stands, the games at my table are about 90% homebrew. Funnily enough, Fighter is the only class at my table not to have very extensive fixes (I gave him good Will progression, considering changing it to just being "pick 2 saves, those have good progression"). Fighter feats on the other hand, I've altered extensively (based off this (/watch?v=EBPmi-C2KRM) project), which I find mostly solves the issue. I have fixed versions for all other classes (Special note goes to Grod_The_Giant's and T.G. Oskar's brew, which makes up about 3/4 of the classes I use), or have replaced them with alternatives (Grod's List Caster Project for wizards/sorcerors for example).
:smallredface:

[NichG]

General view, I couldn't say.

For me, it's mandatory that the GM homebrew (with me either as player or as GM). But I strongly prefer it to be entirely in-house, rather than stuff pulled off the internet. The point of homebrew to me is to make a given campaign distinctive, to give importance to particular parts of the local setting, and to make sure there's stuff to discover. That works when the GM finds it/makes it, and seeds it into the campaign, but it doesn't achieve that particular end when it's just introduced to enable a particular build, and not for in-game reasons.

For the in-house stuff, I'm generally okay with collaborative 'brew as well - player proposes something, GM tweaks, etc. But I prefer to couch it in terms of some concrete, in-character exploratory process rather than just suddenly there's this new class and someone is taking it.

[137beth]

When I use homebrew base classes that aren't fixes, it is usually because a player has a specific concept in mind, and isn't sure how to model it in D&D without a lot of multi-classing and ACFs. Now, many very skilled players (including many on these boards, cf. Iron Chef Optimization) can make almost any concept work, but it frequently requires methods that are intimidating (or just too confusing) to a beginner. Occasionally it will also be from an experienced player who doesn't want to think about heavy dipping. That is usually the point at which I think a homebrew base class is appropriate.

[Emperor Tippy]

I like homebrew but the problem with it (especially if you are mixing a lot of it) is that it can significantly alter power levels, abilities, and balance.

I know D&D 3.5 well enough that I can generally eyeball most homebrew and how it interacts with both other homebrew being used in the game and the game world in general but the vast majority of DM's and players don't have that kind of skill.

Generally though, for anything in this section of the boards the assumption is no homebrew unless the OP specifically mentions it.

[Andion Isurand]

I'm a vote in favor of homebrew, especially since it helps keep this edition of the game alive. I like the challenge of trying to make things work out better for classes and concepts that typically fall behind in relevance as a game progresses.

[Coidzor]

I'm in favor of it, though it can be a bit daunting to go looking for new brew that's good, nifty, and interesting.

[Harrow]

I can only say how it works in my group, which varies by source.

D&D wiki won't even be looked at

Most anything off of GitP the DM will look through and make a decision if the player brings it up

In-house homebrew is actively encouraged. If you want to try out a 'fix' you've made for some of the lower tiered classes, come up with some racial substitution levels, or even make up new feats or classes entirely your own, the rest of the group will be cheering you on all the way through the design process. My group is expected to know the game well enough that it's at least worth the DM's time to look at, and if he thinks there may be a problem he'll bring it up and you can work with him to figure out a solution.

Despite being generally lax on homebrew, my group uses very little. Even when playing Healer or Truenamer we generally just optimize well enough to keep up with the (intentionally less optimized) Cleric or Artificer. It works for us because we're a small group that's been playing together for years. If we had a regular influx of new people, we'd probably try to stay away from it for simplicity's sake.


Now that I think about it, I'd like to play in an 'all homebrew' campaign. No WotC classes, spells, feats, monsters, or magic items. I'd keep the general abilities and mundane equipment, but I'm curious what my group would pull together if they had to make it all themselves.

[Threadnaught]

Generally? There's right and wrong games for Homebrew.

There's also right and wrong DMs for running said games.


I like to have a quick perusal through all Homebrew I'm likely to allow for games where it exists and have all currently allowed Homebrew items in a folder on my favourites bar, labelled "Approved Homebrew" so I can easily access anything I've allowed for any games that Homebrew is allowed in.
Approved list is for serious games and I won't allow anything that creates too large a gap between PCs.


This Race (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Saiyans_(3.5e_Race)) and Class (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ki_Master_(DnD_Class)) will never make the Approved Homebrew folder, though I am interested in running a less serious Campaign where players may use them.

[SinsI]

Depends on what the DM or the players are using and on the amount of official support already available.
I.e. more soulmelds for Incarnum classes or more Maneuvers for Tome of Battle Classes are highly welcome, but more spells for Wizards are not.

[Person_Man]

I view homebrew the same way I view any other work of writing I read on the internet. There are authors I enjoy reading and trust, there are authors I don't enjoy reading or distrust. It's as variable as the level of quality as anything else that's written in the world. Being published on a piece of paper doesn't magically make D&D content better or worse.

[Vizzerdrix]

Homebrew? Kill it with fire.

[1pwny]

I would say a lot of it depends on the situation. If everyone is feeling nice and balanced, and think that encounters are challenging but fun, then Homebrew isn't really necessary. I feel Homebrew comes into effect is when someone wants to be what the base materials don't offer. If I'm trying to go for a specific effect, then maybe regular classes won't cut it for me.

What if I want to punch mountains into bits?
What if I want to shoot poison from my fingertips?
What if I want to go at 0.05C? (1/20 the speed of light)
What if I want to be a constantly-evolving freak of nature? In a good way?

Sometimes, your imagination is suppressed, even by the diversified class options that D&D 3.5 offers. In those cases, you might have to do some exploring.

[NichG]

I'm in favor of it, though it can be a bit daunting to go looking for new brew that's good, nifty, and interesting.

This is part of why I tend to only go for in-house stuff. Its a lot easier to understand the ins-and-outs of something I've designed with another player than e.g. a homebrewed new magic system found online with 50 pages of fiddly abilities, no matter how awesome that system might be. I kind of get that feeling with things like Xenotheurgy, Grammarie, or the Truenamer fixes - they look awesome but they also look too big to easily wrap my head around in one sitting, which means that even if they're great I'm going to feel unprepared to run a game around them.

Even if the in-house thing ends up being 50 pages of fiddly stuff too - at least I and the player had to go through those abilities one at a time and discuss them and why they are what they are, before including them.

[DR27]

It's as variable as the level of quality as anything else that's written in the world. Being published on a piece of paper doesn't magically make D&D content better or worse.This is very well said. I'd like to add that being published by WotC specifically doesn't make something better or worse. They published their share of gems and failures. If you do any amount of filtering on your own by saying "yes" or "no" to books they published, what is the reason for being unwilling to do the same for home-brew your players are interested in? (That's not to say every DM has the experience in order to or is good at filtering allowed content, just that the vast majority are interested in making that call regardless of their own ability)

The developers acknowledged from the start that players are going to home-brew. The DMG has advice on how to create new spells (p35), races (p173), and classes (p174). That's not to say their advice was perfect (it wasn't, they hadn't played their own game enough to master it) or that all home-brew is good (their best advice was that home-brew is hard and needs careful consideration). Embrace home-brew when there is something that your players want that is different from what is available to them, or when a published class had a cool concept and bad execution (did anybody even try to play the Marshal?) - but realize that it needs careful consideration and moderation. You can't just go to a random website and take something without close examination, then be surprised when it is out of line with the rest of your game. Did that piece of home-brew get great community feedback? Does it pass the smell test of "does this compare well to what my players are already able to do?"

Also - home-brew can extend to more than just the mechanical aspect of a class. If the situation calls for it, and your player wants to rewrite the background to a class, and everybody is cool with it - re-fluffing can take a class they like and make it gel with their character concept.