How do you judge material?

[Grinner]

Classes, races, monsters, whatever.

When you look at these things, what are you looking for mechanics-wise? How do you separate the wheat and the chaff? For instance, say I'm designing a class hypothetically. I'm looking to avoid design anything that can be abused, obviously, but I also don't want to hamstring any character that ends up in that class. I'm aiming straight for Tier 3. Or say I'm designing a race. What design weaknesses should a homebrewer be aware of?

A couple things that pop to mind:

What is this designed to do, and what is it not designed to do?
How well does it do the former, and how poorly does it do the latter?
How well do its abilities synchronize?
If a class, how many high ability scores would a player want to play this class?
What other abilities might this homebrew's abilities synchronize with?

[Nifft]

GUILTY.

Wait, uh. I mean.

I usually see if it offers anything new as compared to what I already have. If it does, then I look more carefully to see if it breaks the game. If not, then I try to see if it brakes any of my homebrew setting's lore. Finally, if it's bringing new value and not wrecking game balance, I see if I can fit it in somewhere, or use it to replace something else wholesale.

[BearonVonMu]

To echo Nifft, I judge it against the other options available to the players. If the homebrew is so much better than anything already available that everyone will pick that class/race/option, then it might be too powerful. The same gauge applies if nobody would ever pick it.
You're aiming for tier 3. That's a pretty good target area and it gives some leeway for things to be slightly too powerful but end up okay.
Tier 3: "Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with."
Compare your homebrew to the existing tier 3 stuff. The swordsage, the bard, the beguiler, the duskblade. Does your class simply outshine these? Does it pale next to them? Are they on similar footing for damage, durability, flexibility? Consider using the BAB/saves/skills per level/ability progression of one of them as a starting point, swapping out abilities for abilities of similar power.
Is your class too front-loaded? If so, you'll get players dipping into it but not riding it out.
For races, the simplest way is to compare them to humans. If you would always take the homebrew (and that isn't what you're aiming for in your setting), then it should probably get either a level adjustment or toned down.

[SimonMoon6]

Does it do what it's supposed to do?

For example, having an ability that requires a swift action in order to have the option to use another ability as a swift action but only on that same turn... that would be a failure. Basically, I judge by how well the designer knows the actual rules of the game. Can the ability actually be used? Is it worded correctly? And so forth.

And along those lines: if this is a trade-off ability (such as a prestige class or, to a lesser extent, a feat), is it comparable to other options? For example, a wizard-only prestige class that doesn't advance spellcasting is probably a big pile of poo unless it does something dramatically useful. OTOH, a spellcasting prestige class that advances spellcasting that also has all good saves and good BAB? Probably too good.

And also: is this "thing" that this ability can do something worth doing? Getting a +30 to Balance checks while on a ship might be a nice ability for a pirate prestige class... but is it worth the effort to get something that will probably never ever come up in a typical campaign? Or if it is meant only for those specific situations, is it even really all that useful in those specific situations? Would I give up five fighter feats just for +30 to Balance, even if Balance checks show up frequently?

Also: I view cautiously any ability that grants a potentially unlimited bonus. For example, a class that lets you add WIS to AC or CHA to saving throws (hello monk and paladin) seems reasonable at first. But if I can play a succubus paladin with crazy high CHA, maybe that's a bit overpowered? Maybe not... at least not until someone makes prestige classes (or feats or whatever) that also let me use CHA for other things too. A more balanced class is one that gives a bonus based on the level of the prestige class (+1 to AC per level of the prestige class, for example, possibly with a max equal to CHA mod).

Also: back to the "is this actually useful" issue... does this prestige class grant me the ability of a 2nd level spell at 10th level of the prestige class (which probably means 15th character level)? If so, that's useless and stupid, even if it's an "at will" or "supernatural" ability. No. Not worth it. Even if it's cool and flavorful.

And: as much as some writers seem to love to add "flavor" and "fluff" to a class? That's irrelevant.

[Curmudgeon]

Does it do what it's supposed to do?
I think we've got to ignore that.


Characteristics: Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name).
Fighters definitely don't have the best all-around fighting capabilities of all D&D classes.


Though a monk casts no spells, she has a magic of her own. She channels a subtle energy, called ki, which allows her to perform amazing feats. The monk’s best-known feat is her ability to stun an opponent with an unarmed blow.
Monks do not have any intrinsic stunning capabilities. They can take the Stunning Fist feat, but then so can members of any other class. There is no ki used in Stunning Fist.


Experienced rogues develop mystical powers and skills as they master the arts of stealth, evasion, and sneak attacks.
There's not a single "mystical power" (Supernatural, Spell-like, or Psi-like) in the class. Everything is either natural or Extraordinary.

Read pretty much any class description and you'll find a discrepancy between what they're "supposed to do" and what they actually can do.

[Zakerst]

So this is kinda a two pronged question, how do you (I) judge published material and how do you (I) judge homebrew.

For the first as far as including it in games my thought process goes like this:

1. Can my players reasonably deal with this emotionally maturely and mechanically [the first two are just gut judgment calls based on knowing my players] the third is sometimes the hard one as taken too literally it can become "guess what Gygax is thinking," which is not fun. So for the third par I loosely look at what answers I can see them having and compare that to what they've done in the past to get a rough guess of how likely they are to come to that or a similar course of action.

2. Does it do as it says on the tin? If I'm the DM I can change the packaging to look however I like (i.e. fluff is mutable, and numbers can be fudged within reason) so usually this isn't a problem, just change the tin to reflect the product if needed, if I'm not I have to be sure to ask if I think any refluffing is needed/prudent.

3. How much is this choice going to change the game? If any given addition/modification from the norm is going to significantly change the game significantly, (most if not all house rules, and bans soft or hard are going to be significant) then at the bear minimum it needs to be clearly and directly stated and possibly explained before play.

4. Does it look like it's going to be fun/can I make it fun?

5. Is it from a carpet banned source?

For me to give something a pass it must go 1. yes, 2. mostly, 3. is instructions really, 4. is most important and should be yes 5. if yes there will need to be a lot of talking done about it as at my table carpet bans are not taken without logistical reasons or blanket failings of 1. and/or 4.

Now for homebrew, when making something the first thing is:

1.do I have a clear design goal? if not I need to stop right there.

2. Is the goal better/at all met by something I've already go on hand? if so try and use what you've got, you don't need to reinvent the wheel every time you have to change a tire.

3. Is it mechanically valid and coherent and clear? Does it work as written? Is easy to understand what it does and is supposed to do? If it's not valid as written that needs fixed before any further progress can be made. If it's hard to understand what it does consider adding an example or trimming the wording/rules to be more concise and precise without losing accuracy.

4. Is it clearly over or under powered in relation to other options and entities already in play? If it looks like its in tier 1 or even sometimes high 2 or as low as 6 or 5 it likely needs reworking and tuning. If it makes other options outmoded is that a problem, e.g. if it replaces fighter straight up like generic warrior, this isn't really a problem as fighter had little niche for itself anyway, if it replaces something someone is already playing this may be a problem unless it is for them.

5. Play testing: do it. run it through a few mock battles/encounters on your own time, the only way to know something for sure is to try it in a controlled environment.

6. Don't get too attached to any idea or concept, not all of them will work or will work as you've made them, I know this one is hard but in the end it's essential if you get too attached you become blind to the above.

7. Finally is it/does it still, look/feel/play fun? If not scrap it or keep working with it/he/she/what-have-you.

[Flickerdart]

The only objective way is application of the Pareto Frontier. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency) Essentially, an option is only "good" if no other option is superior to it in every dimension.

Obvious dimensions for D&D are "how well does this work mechanically" and "how rich is this fluff-wise." Something that works well mechanically must be worth the resource expenditure to get it, must help resolve problems, and must be relevant and useful in the campaign. Something that is rich fluff-wise builds upon the character by making him unique, well-rounded, and establishes his reasons for being where he is and doing what he does.

For example, consider someone who is building a veteran warrior. The player wants his guy to be tough as nails, body and mind - one doesn't make it through a military campaign by being weak. The player can spend two feats on Iron Will and Great Fortitude - but these are Pareto-dominated options because Steadfast Determination is both mechanically more useful and more distinctive. A character with Steadfast Determination is not only getting a bigger bonus, but it is also a more distinct ability - he now never fails Fortitude saves on a 1. This is a character that's literally tougher than bad luck.

[Pluto!]

I am heavily prejudiced against a class if:

It doesn't follow numerical system conventions (weird save progressions and skill advancement are common).
It has any abilities expressed as flat numeric modifiers.
Its writing is bad.


I write a class off as a waste of paper if:

Its concept is incoherent.
It has more than one complex mechanic.
It has no complex mechanics.
Its class features rely heavily on class level.
It is the Factotum.


I give a class bonus points if:

The class explores unique concepts mechanically or thematically.
Different characters within the class can have widely different abilities.
The class has a reasonable power level.
The class has parameters that facilitate multiclassing.
It is a Psion.

[Beheld]

1) How does this class/feat/ect stack up against monsters of the same CR. IE, can it beat monsters of the appropriate CR the appropriate amount, can it contribute to encounters against CR appropriate opposition?

2) If a class, does it have out of combat world building and utility powers so that PCs who take this class can involve themselves in the story, instead of following around the real PCs acting as their combat fire and forget missile?

3) Is it strategically and tactically interesting to play? PC classes should have multiple abilities to use, and a reason to vary abilities such that they don't do the same thing every round regardless of opposition. Things like immunity breakers are bad because they negate the need for PCs to think about their actions, since the same strategy works on all opponents, and nothing the enemies can do will help them. IE, enchanters should not pierce mind affecting immunity, because then no one can intelligently adapt their tactics to the enchanter, instead enchanters should bring minions that are can fight against mind affecting immune foes. Things like having only a single thing that you do with a character build, such as charge for massive damage, is bad because it reduces the entire game to "Do I win the encounter with my supermove, or am I useless?"

4) Is it overly complicated and fiddly for no good reason?

5) Does it break the RNG for no good reason? This class is a martial class that has saving throws based off charisma. Also it gets it's Charisma added to attack and damage, and all saves (Not even in place of, just in addition to). Why does it need to have better saves than every other character? Is there any actual game mechanical reason why doing this is good for the game? Why does it get to have a higher attack bonus than other characters would it really be worthless if it only had one stat adding to AB? What good reasons are there for deviating from the standard RNG that applies to all classes?

Special Bonus round) Does it have abilities on a per day schedule that would absolutely not be overpowered on an at will or one minute of rest, or 3 rounds to recharge schedule for no good reason? IE, Paladin Smite, Barbarian Rage, lots of Prestige classes and homebrew classes that apparently feel bad if people don't have a daily resource schedule for something that could absolutely just be at will or take a full round action to reset.


I am heavily prejudiced against a class if:
It has any abilities expressed as flat numeric modifiers.

Why? A +10 to the RNG is the same at level 1 as it is at level 20 all else being the same, why would you think a numerical modifier would benefit from being scaling?

[Curmudgeon]

Why? A +10 to the RNG is the same at level 1 as it is at level 20 all else being the same, why would you think a numerical modifier would benefit from being scaling?
I'm guessing flat modifiers make the class uninteresting rather than unplayable.

[Beheld]

I'm guessing flat modifiers make the class uninteresting rather than unplayable.

Why would flat modifiers make the class uninteresting but scaling modifiers make it interesting? If he were against generic number buffs that would be one thing, but he specifically set out flat modifiers instead of scaling as if that was distinct.

[Pluto!]

It's not about power.

"+3 to all saving throws" is probably stronger than Divine Grace 80% of the time, but it's a worse class feature. It's boring. It doesn't add any considerations to character-building. It doesn't let players feel exploitative or masterful by gaming it with complimentary ability requirements.

And worse, some publishers have things like "10 skill points" as a class feature, which manages to be both wonky and dull.

[Amphetryon]

There's not a single "mystical power" (Supernatural, Spell-like, or Psi-like) in the class. Everything is either natural or Extraordinary.

Read pretty much any class description and you'll find a discrepancy between what they're "supposed to do" and what they actually can do.

Where did D&D specify that "mystical" explicitly means Supernatural, Spell-like, or Psi-like, making it a mechanical term with that particular set of defined parameters?

[Beheld]

It's not about power.

"+3 to all saving throws" is probably stronger than Divine Grace 80% of the time, but it's a worse class feature. It's boring. It doesn't add any considerations to character-building. It doesn't let players feel exploitative or masterful by gaming it with complimentary ability requirements.

The way I see it, no one is going to worry about Divine Grace, and the only people who do are going to be people who are Cha everything are going to use it. So in effect all scaling bonuses are just more powerful than the comparable flat bonuses, but only certain characters can use them. There is a reason that Sorcerer's might use Prestige Paladin and Bloodline levels to get Divine Grace, but Wizards don't, and it is because for one of them it breaks the RNG completely in half, and for the other it does very little.

[Curmudgeon]

Where did D&D specify that "mystical" explicitly means Supernatural, Spell-like, or Psi-like, making it a mechanical term with that particular set of defined parameters?
Nowhere, which means it has its usual meaning.
mystical
-adjective

1. mystic; of or relating to supernatural agencies, affairs, occurrences, etc.: a strange, mystical experience.

[Sacrieur]

I have an editor.

[Tvtyrant]

Basically I focus on how easy it is to understand and use vs. how strong it is. Incarnum is one of the best subsystems from 3.5 as far as balance goes, but it is difficult to grasp and badly explaines. The binder is similarly good balancewise but much easier to learn.

Spheres of Power and warlocks/DFA are the best casters IMO, essy to use and decently strong.

[bekeleven]

A few random axes.

First is the comprehension axis. The material has to give more per unit of complexity than other, similar material.

From there on in, at least to me, it's all about choice. Good material increases the options available to a player or a DM. Bad material does not. After all, if by adding material you're not expanding the player's experience of the game... why bother?

For example:

Archery is underpowered. Therefore, archery is bad material. No player will choose archery when given options of melee combat, stealth and spellcasting.

Martial classes are underpowered (I'm speaking mostly to core + early splats). Therefore, martial classes are bad material. They waste everyone's time. Why bother reading it? Worse, what it someone is under the mistaken impression that the designers successfully balanced them?

Meanwhile, power attack is so good anyone whose build even flirts with the concept will take it. Power attack therefore serves to reduce options.

However, with power attack, martial classes can find their niche vis a vis spellcasters. Somehow, by combining some bad (underpowered) material that presents to real choice with bad (overpowered) material that reduces choice, we've added choices back into the game!

The relationship is not always straightforward.

[Florian]

I base this answer specifically on Pathfinder.

1 - Does it follow established design patterns?
2 - Doesnit scale according to established scaling patterns or is it flat?
3 - Does it outright supercede anything that has been established and if, by what margin?
4 - Is it a trade-off or an outright upgrade?
5 - Does it include new subsystems and if yes, how fiddly are they, do they slow down the game?

[Novawurmson]

I write a class off as a waste of paper if:

Its class features rely heavily on class level.

Interesting. I'm guessing you're primarily a 3.5 player (as opposed to PF)? PF heavily emphasizes class features that scale with level and reward you for sticking with the class, and it's something I like. Just as a matter of preference, I dislike that much of 3.5 doesn't scale as well with class level/almost necessitates multiclassing or prestige classing. I enjoy reading through threads of the amazing things that can be accomplished by fusing levels from 15 different classes together, but it's not my preferred style of play.

[Pluto!]

Fair guess.

I'm talking mostly about abilities that just don't do anything if you multiclass - looking hard at abilities that require saving throws or things like Steal Spell, which need complete level investment to do anything against level-appropriate opponents. Also things like the Duelist's AC bonus, where capping the number by class level makes actually using the ability at all a poor numeric decision until 7+ levels in.

ToB and Trailblazer each had what I think were good mechanics for multiclassing, where all classes advance critical abilities, some just less than others. There were also hints of that sort of mechanic in the Rules Compendium, which finally explicitly said that the DCs of various special attacks scale according to the 10+1/2 HD+Ability formula.

I don't necessarily dislike scaling itself, but I'd be much more satisfied by the Dragonfire Adept if its breath weapon counted 1/2 out-of-class levels in its formula, and its DC were based on HD instead of class level. That wouldn't necessarily make it strong for a character like Fighter 8/Dragonfire Adept 5, but it would at least let the DFA's central ability do something in the CR13 fights it expects every day.

Mostly, I just hate multiclassing leaving characters with a bunch of loose-end abilities that atrophy further and further as the game goes on, until the character sheet is full of entries that just don't do anything useful.

[Amphetryon]

Fair guess.

I'm talking mostly about abilities that just don't do anything if you multiclass - looking hard at abilities that require saving throws or things like Steal Spell, which need complete level investment to do anything against level-appropriate opponents. Also things like the Duelist's AC bonus, where capping the number by class level makes actually using the ability at all a poor numeric decision until 7+ levels in.

ToB and Trailblazer each had what I think were good mechanics for multiclassing, where all classes advance critical abilities, some just less than others. There were also hints of that sort of mechanic in the Rules Compendium, which finally explicitly said that the DCs of various special attacks scale according to the 10+1/2 HD+Ability formula.

I don't necessarily dislike scaling itself, but I'd be much more satisfied by the Dragonfire Adept if its breath weapon counted 1/2 out-of-class levels in its formula, and its DC were based on HD instead of class level. That wouldn't necessarily make it strong for a character like Fighter 8/Dragonfire Adept 5, but it would at least let the DFA's central ability do something in the CR13 fights it expects every day.
But that formula relies heavily on Class level. It even changes if you multiclass. By what you've written previously, that means you're inclined to write-off any ability that scales as a Character advances.

[Pluto!]

But that formula relies heavily on Class level. It even changes if you multiclass. By what you've written previously, that means you're inclined to write-off any ability that scales as a Character advances.
Scaling abilities are great. They let a character have an MO, and let that MO stay relevant.

I didn't mean I would write off classes with formulas that rely heavily on character level, I meant I would normally write off classes with functions that rely heavily on character level. I just had trouble phrasing that in a concise bullet point. <_<

Warblade is, in a lot of ways, how I think classes should look:
One central complex scaling mechanic in the form of its maneuvers, with simple minor augmentations to that ability throughout its progression.
Built-in differentiation between Warblades in maneuver and bonus feat selection.
Friendly to multiclassing out, and beneficial for multiclassing in, regardless of level.


I would also list Warlock as a great example, except it's missing that critical multiclass viability, where it offers very little for characters multiclassing in, and its damage dice and save DCs fade to obsolescence for characters multiclassing out.