What's the big deal with homebrew? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 05:59 PM

exelsisxax

2016-11-04, 06:03 PM

elonin

2016-11-04, 06:20 PM

At its best homebrew can be similar to printed classes with just more choices. Or it can be gamebreaking awful.

Jormengand

2016-11-04, 06:20 PM

My homebrew fighter have 200% full BAB, 2 feats per level, double skill ranks with no cap, and the spellcasting of an equal level sorcerer.

Huh. Sounds like it might almost stand up to a wizard.

But more to the point, this ignores the fact that there is a lot of high-quality homebrew available, and a lot of broken Wizards content.

TheifofZ

2016-11-04, 06:29 PM

Beyond just the fact that much of 'homebrew' is an excuse for ridiculous amounts of power, much of the rest of it is... well. Calling it aweful and garbage is rude, but that's basically the gist of it.

There are some homebrewed things I'd, as a DM, seriously consider letting my players use if they spoke to me in advance about, and made sure I understood what it was going to be capable of doing. Middle Finger of Vecna (http://www.middlefingerofvecna.com/) is a site with plenty of decent examples of homebrew that I might consider allowing after the player discussed everything about it..
But that's the thing, I'd want to discuss each separate part of the homebrew items used with the player before saying 'okay' to any of them.
If you just say 'homebrew is okay' though, that general acceptance opens the door to all sorts of nightmarish things. Like 'My homebrew class gets ninth level spells at level 1, divine and arcane, and spends HP to cast them instead of spell slots'. And if you think that's balanced, you need to seriously re-evaluate your concept of power.

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 06:37 PM

My homebrew fighter have 200% full BAB, 2 feats per level, double skill ranks with no cap, and the spellcasting of an equal level sorcerer.

That's why. DMs, especially longtime DMs, often have a good grasp of what's available, but homebrew is literally everything and the DM doesn't know it. And yes, it's very often total nonsense that fills no niche except cheating.

And if something like that showed up in a printed book, you'd be OK with it? Something something multi-thousand-damage barbarian? 50 level 1 spells for a single class? A DC 28 Fort save or be paralyzed for 2d6+2 rounds per melee attack you're hit by at level 4?

And yeah, as the other guy said, this presumption that homebrew can't be good, or anything other than cheating (which is rather nonsense. That's the minority based on what I've seen), doesn't exist. Or indeed, suggests the more popular sets of homebrew like Spheres of Power, are just there to "cheat".

If you just say 'homebrew is okay' though, that general acceptance opens the door to all sorts of nightmarish things. Like 'My homebrew class gets ninth level spells at level 1, divine and arcane, and spends HP to cast them instead of spell slots'. And if you think that's balanced, you need to seriously re-evaluate your concept of power.

I do have a book where it allows wizards to cast using hp in addition to spell slots though... (with a whole feat line that makes it increasingly efficient)

Anyway. I wasn't advocating for blind acceptance of everything homebrew. But I want to know how people reconcile blind acceptance of printed material when they don't even allow looking at homebrew?

exelsisxax

2016-11-04, 06:41 PM

Huh. Sounds like it might almost stand up to a wizard.

But more to the point, this ignores the fact that there is a lot of high-quality homebrew available, and a lot of broken Wizards content.

And in the list of acceptable sources, the broken items aren't mentioned, so the game is relatively balanced other than wizards and codzilla of course.

DMs just want to avoid the hassle of trying to review every little thing that a player might want to use. Yes, there are excellent homebrews, but most of them are terrible and DMs inevitably wade through that crap if they allow homebrew, and some of them decide not to do so again. DMs have enough stuff to juggle already, they generally don't want more.

Afgncaap5

2016-11-04, 06:49 PM

I'm a huge fan of homebrew, and I've both used it at the permission of GMs and granted permission to players to use it. Having said that: homebrew is a *big* unknown, often with little in the way of verifiability. The monk class may not be balanced the way we want it, but it's a devil we know. If you just want a nice, casual third tier game with a fighter, and a bard, and a new player who just takes face value options for Wizard without a thought to optimizing, suddenly having someone pull out the homebrew Aristocrat class they found that gives huge boosts to starting wealth, training in about anything, a retinue of servants on par with the Leadership feat, and a commanding presence that acts as a non-magical mind-affecting ability can be... disruptive.

Now, don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place for classes like *that*, but that's just one out of a big bundle of potentially disruptive options (and this isn't even counting the amount of homebrew that's just *bad*.) Even players that I trust really well can start to run away with things with an unexpected trick. (I'll never forget the look of brief madness that washed over a GM's face in a game of Pathfinder when a friend who was playing a Witch teamed up with me (playing an eliciter from SoP) to boost a paladin who'd been having bad luck with his rolls so that for his two attacks he could roll eight d20s.)

So... yeah. Disallowing homebrew isn't really about calling it "bad" or "overpowered", I think. Instead, I think it's about the unknown. GMs already jump through so many hoops to make their games work and make things fun for players that homebrew options can break the proverbial camel's back.

mabriss lethe

2016-11-04, 06:56 PM

It depends on the situation:

If a player says they want to use homebrew material for the heck of it, I'll give it a look, but will probably suggest a slight tweak to something currently in print instead. If they want to play one of the semi-official fixes for various subpar classes (hexblade, shadowcaster, etc.) I'll almost definitely say yes. If they want to play one of the preexisting and vetted homebrew fixes for something like Truenamer, I'll probably say yes. If they come to me with a class or prc that they've homebrewed and want to play it for playtest purposes, I'll probably say yes, but with the caveats that 1. It meets certain basic benchmarks, and 2. I have the right make revisions to the material if it causes problems.

Troacctid

2016-11-04, 06:59 PM

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 07:05 PM

So... yeah. Disallowing homebrew isn't really about calling it "bad" or "overpowered", I think. Instead, I think it's about the unknown. GMs already jump through so many hoops to make their games work and make things fun for players that homebrew options can break the proverbial camel's back.

hmm. That's definitely a reason (indeed a couple of the ones I mentioned in the OP). I'd argue most who allow all printed sources are often working with as much unknown, especially when the sources aren't easily looked up online. And yet, they simply trust their players to not screw over their game, and hijack the campaign (with a wizard, or other obscure class/race/acf/etc).

And yet, as this thread has already shown, there's this stigma that homebrew is only for "cheating", and clearly not worthy of trust, even though much, much more powerful options exist in printed books. If they wanted to "cheat" why not just sneak it by the DM that they are a charge-lot barbarian, since the printed classes aren't scrutinized at all?

What would you do in a mid-op game with a chargelot, or some uberninja who just leaves the party to talk about the weather as he solos the dungeon designed for 4 people? What would you do differently if they happened to use a homebrew class to do the same thing? (If it was inherent in the homebrew taken, that's one thing. Not often the case, based on my experience.)

Beneath

2016-11-04, 07:09 PM

It's because you need to have some rule as to what's in and out, and going by publisher, or allowing specific books, is an easy rule to make. Plus, depending on optimization, specifying a finite pool of sources is easier on both players and GM than allowing homebrew on a case-by-case basis, as I have done (if nothing else, it means you only have to read published books instead of dozens of forums if you research every feat pick)

Jormengand

2016-11-04, 07:11 PM

And in the list of acceptable sources, the broken items aren't mentioned, so the game is relatively balanced other than wizards and codzilla of course.

This is in contravention to the opening post, and therefore the thread topic, but fine, whatever, we'll pretend that a game with six recognised levels of powers which are massively far apart is "Balanced".

Troacctid

2016-11-04, 07:16 PM

I'd argue most who allow all printed sources are often working with as much unknown, especially when the sources aren't easily looked up online. And yet, they simply trust their players to not screw over their game, and hijack the campaign (with a wizard, or other obscure class/race/acf/etc).
I have a lot of books and I'm very familiar with printed sources. Even if I weren't, most optimization ground is well-trod by the community at this point, and there's only a handful of truly broken tricks out there.

And yet, as this thread has already shown, there's this stigma that homebrew is only for "cheating", and clearly not worthy of trust, even though much, much more powerful options exist in printed books. If they wanted to "cheat" why not just sneak it by the DM that they are a charge-lot barbarian, since the printed classes aren't scrutinized at all?
Being overpowered isn't the same as just doing too much damage. A power imbalance threatens the health of the game by invalidating alternative options. That's the vector that homebrew attacks from. Whatever you're trying to do, there will always be a homebrew that does it better, because even if it doesn't exist yet, you can just make one up. So the correct move is to always use homebrew 100% of the time.

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 07:29 PM

Being overpowered isn't the same as just doing too much damage. A power imbalance threatens the health of the game by invalidating alternative options. That's the vector that homebrew attacks from. Whatever you're trying to do, there will always be a homebrew that does it better, because even if it doesn't exist yet, you can just make one up. So the correct move is to always use homebrew 100% of the time.

That is, again, based on the assumption that the users of homebrew only want to "do x better". Again, what's the point? It's a cooperative game. Being massively over optimized (or over homebrewized) for your party isn't fun for anyone. I mean, maybe, except for that first surprise session just to see their expressions... afterwhich you then get kicked out of the group for being disruptive.

Sometimes it really is "hey, being able to transform in to a weapon and help the wielder attack sounds like a cool idea," and is simply a niche that isn't filled in printed materials.

I have a lot of books and I'm very familiar with printed sources. Even if I weren't, most optimization ground is well-trod by the community at this point, and there's only a handful of truly broken tricks out there.

I apologize. I didn't intend to suggest that callout anyone in particular as not being knowledgeable. I've seen (and in fact been in) several campaigns where the DMs have allowed every book (and no homebrew). Those that gave an answer when I asked what optimization level they were looking for, they'd often respond with "tier 3" or "rogue/bard", and except for 1 time, they expressed surprise at tier 4 being the home of the chargelot.

And that's a lot of material. Perhaps I'm just pessimistic of the chances that people actually kept up to date with all the publications, and am drastically underestimating the number of people who even could put in the time to read all the published works.

eggynack

2016-11-04, 07:34 PM

I have a lot of books and I'm very familiar with printed sources. Even if I weren't, most optimization ground is well-trod by the community at this point, and there's only a handful of truly broken tricks out there.

Yeah, I definitely don't know everything about everything, but there's this core assumption for those that know a reasonable amount about the system that, if something's really overpowered or broken, then it's probably seen a decent amount of mention in various places. The best stuff out there floats to the top, almost regardless of source obscurity, so if you've never heard of something from an official source, then the idea that it's not all that great is a decent, though not perfect, first order approximation.

Also, from an optimization perspective, homebrew comes across as kinda lame. Restrictions breed creativity, and having a vast but absolutely fixed upper bound on accessible resources makes the puzzle of optimizing towards a concept, or optimizing in general, an interesting one. Fully or nearly fully allowing homebrew essentially eliminates that restriction, making the task of designing a particular character relatively uninteresting.

Fizban

2016-11-04, 07:39 PM

Besides the problem of Sturgeon's Law (90% of homebrew is crap), homebrew is disruptive to optimization and devalues the official printed material that players are already familiar with.

The only homebrew I allow is my own.
Sturgeon's Law is that 90% of everything is crap, that includes your cherished 1st party material. (How's that for confrontational?)

Well made homebrew beats the pants off of published material, since it has the opportunity for many updates and revisions after public feedback, while WotC was always notoriously obstinate in fixing problems and just stopped making errata eventually. The number of hours a homebrewer can put into just one feat or class completely dwarfs the number of hours WotC could possibly have spent on it, since they need to keep pushing forward to sell more books and pay the bills.

Furthermore, we know from many anecdotes (including some printed in books even) that many of their designers just weren't very good at the game, or rather, at optimizing. You want balance, you need someone who knows what the rules can actually do, rather than someone who adheres to second set of invisible rules that keeps everything in line.

As said above, the problem people have with homebrew is that it's not their own, that it's unknown. Plenty of people can talk the char-op talk, but that doesn't mean everyone has the skills to evaluate their own homebrew let alone someone else's. So some people that can't handle it treat hombrew like cheating trash.* Their failure, their loss. If the DM actually knows the game they can evaluate and allow anything they want and there's no reason to treat homebrew any differently from published material. I think most people could open the doors to homebrew if they wanted to, you really need is a good grounding in your basic optimization and players that aren't trying to trick you and there shouldn't be trouble vetting most things- and when the players are trying to sneak things in you have a different problem.

*Now, if what you're thinking of is the hate for dnd wiki, that's a rather different problem. A wiki will attract even more trash than a forum since the comments are less visible if there even are any, and lots of noobs go there and think it's an "official" source of some sort, where they find stuff written by other noobs which then makes their games even worse.

Troacctid

2016-11-04, 07:45 PM

That is, again, based on the assumption that the users of homebrew only want to "do x better". Again, what's the point?
Players are always going to optimize. That's how games work. You can't put an obvious optimal strategy in front of players without warping the metagame. If you incentivize players to do something, you have to expect them to be more likely to do it.

Those that gave an answer when I asked what optimization level they were looking for, they'd often respond with "tier 3" or "rogue/bard", and except for 1 time, they expressed surprise at tier 4 being the home of the chargelot.
That's more because JaronK's tier system is not very good.

Also, from an optimization perspective, homebrew comes across as kinda lame. Restrictions breed creativity, and having a vast but absolutely fixed upper bound on accessible resources makes the puzzle of optimizing towards a concept, or optimizing in general, an interesting one. Fully or nearly fully allowing homebrew essentially eliminates that restriction, making the task of designing a particular character relatively uninteresting.
Oh yeah, also this.

Sturgeon's Law is that 90% of everything is crap, that includes your cherished 1st party material. (How's that for confrontational?)
*looks at some Complete Warrior prestige classes*

Checks out.

eggynack

2016-11-04, 07:46 PM

Sometimes it really is "hey, being able to transform in to a weapon and help the wielder attack sounds like a cool idea," and is simply a niche that isn't filled in printed materials.
See, this here is my point. You wind up resorting to what is presumably a "Become a weapon sometimes that bestows benefits to its wielder" class, instead of doing something unexpected and getting such a character through sheer ingenuity. Because, indeed, I have two fancy druid based ways to do just this. First is picking up the ACF city soul which allows you to become animated objects. Could turn yourself into a weapon that way, if ya wanted. Other is aberration wild shape for various symbiont forms, which lets you attach yourself to allies for various ally benefits. Some of which act a good amount like attacks, if you invest. Like, you could use cerebral hood form with assume supernatural ability and get this cool mind blast ability that gets better when you're equipped. It's not a really strong plan, but I think it's really cool that it's a concept that you can approximate through the use of various weird stuff.

P.F.

2016-11-04, 07:50 PM

We use some sort of homebrew in literally almost every game. The only caveat is that it absolutely explicitly requires prior approval from the DM.

When that DM is me, I also require that any interactions with other new or existing feats, spells, class abilities, etc., i.e., anything which can be considered a "combo," must also be disclosed and approved in advance or it simply doesn't work. That closes the loophole of creating gamebreakingly overpowered abilities "by accident."

The danger is not so much from blatantly, stupendously overpowered abilities, as it is from the temptation to make the ability ever so slightly better than what's out there already. Generally this starts out as being fine, but power creep can get out of control in a hurry if it's allowed to snowball, especially if multiple players are writing new homebrew for each session.

Of course often homebrew can be bad, in the sense that it is severely underpowered, or impractical, or so situational that it never gets used, or simply broken (doesn't do what the player wants it to do). A discerning DM can hopefully recognize these and instead of saying "That's not overpowered, approved," can work with the player to fix the ability so that it can be used appropriately.

I personally suspect that homebrew gets a lot of pushback from certain rules-as-written types because a homebrew class often does a thing better than the (presumably tier 5) class which it replaces, limits the other players' ability to assess the homebrew's capabilities, and subverts the perceived advantage of having done extensive "book-delving." It's not so much an issue of game balance, as it is of upsetting the game status quo.

And of course there's a lot of overpowered/underpowered/dysfunctional/obnoxious/stupid homebrew out there.

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 07:58 PM

See, this here is my point. You wind up resorting to what is presumably a "Become a weapon sometimes that bestows benefits to its wielder" class, instead of doing something unexpected and getting such a character through sheer ingenuity. Because, indeed, I have two fancy druid based ways to do just this. First is picking up the ACF city soul which allows you to become animated objects. Could turn yourself into a weapon that way, if ya wanted. Other is aberration wild shape for various symbiont forms, which lets you attach yourself to allies for various ally benefits. Some of which act a good amount like attacks, if you invest. Like, you could use cerebral hood form with assume supernatural ability and get this cool mind blast ability that gets better when you're equipped. It's not a really strong plan, but I think it's really cool that it's a concept that you can approximate through the use of various weird stuff.

OK. So, you use a Druid to be a "'Become a weapon sometimes that bestows benefits to its wielder' class"...The difference? Having to fiddle with more alternate class features and rules, and "dumpster diving for monsters"? ...That is somehow "better", when the effects are the same?

So like, is a regular old druid equally as invalid as a homebrew class, because it's not "creative" enough? What about a wizard that just said "Screw prcs. I've got more than I already need" and went Wizard 20?

You only tossed in 2 extra bits there. Is that all you need to be considered "creative"? Well, take random prc 1 and random prc 2. Done. Toss in some manifesting for good measure.

And is reading an acf in one book somehow more inherently "creative" than reading it in another?

John Longarrow

2016-11-04, 07:59 PM

I can only answer for my table and the games I've been in.

We only allow access to books the entire group has. We only allow homebrew the whole group has access to. The homebrew is what the DM included for their game to make it match their world.

Outside rules from books we don't have are adjudicated on a case by case basis. DM can easily do an internet search to see what issues have occurred before with that particular source.

Homebrew is generally not allowed unless its going to be added for the entire campaign, then it needs to fit the campaign world.

This isn't about balance, in general. This is about everyone having the same playing field to start with. It also avoids a lot of problems when the person who tries creating their own content interprets what they have written differently than the DM. if its a third party source most people are very willing to allow the DM's ruling to be final. If its a rule/class/race/what ever you yourself have created it can lead to a lot of hassle in game when you and the DM disagree over a specific aspect of a build.

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 08:03 PM

SethoMarkus

2016-11-04, 08:04 PM

For me, the biggest cause for "banning" homebrew in games I run is to avoid favouritism, whether intentional or unintentional.

To allow all homebrew without individual approval is a fool's decision, and I really don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that. That means homebrew needs to be approved on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to the extra work this places on the DM, it also opens the possibility of players accusing the DM of favouritism (or even of the DM subconsciously favouring one player over another, even if no one is aware of it or points it out).

Sure, this can certainly happen without homebrew, I just see homebrew as an un-necessary addition. As Eggynack pointed out, most ideas can already be realized in 3.x with the official material. If a player really wants a honebrew option, I try to work with them to find a way to accomplish the same goal with printed material first, then with the minimal homebrew possible second (feats, spells, etc), and will only allow a full homebrew class or system if there is absolutely no other way to realize their concept. (But by that point I'll have already attempted switching to a different system like FATE or M&M.)

DeadMech

2016-11-04, 08:19 PM

I've never played more than a few levels of 3.5 let alone DM'd it for years and years. I'm not the best judge of the power of a class, feat or spell. I can read things and think they are much more powerful than they actually are. Or write something off as being weaker than they actually are. At least when it's published material I can come to a forum like this one and research it. And the people who reply to me about it or who are already talking about it have the benefit of having used it in play at some point. This isn't the case with homebrew material.

So no if a player comes to me with a homebrew idea I'm probably not going to entertain the thought. There are certainly things in the published game that I don't like and am willing to change myself. But in that case it only affects gameplay in ways I am comfortable with and am in control of.

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 08:23 PM

For me, the biggest cause for "banning" homebrew in games I run is to avoid favouritism, whether intentional or unintentional.

hmm. Makes sense. Didn't think of that. Thanks

To allow all homebrew without individual approval is a fool's decision, and I really don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that. That means homebrew needs to be approved on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to the extra work this places on the DM...

... As Eggynack pointed out, most ideas can already be realized in 3.x with the official material. If a player really wants a honebrew option, I try to work with them to find a way to accomplish the same goal with printed material first, then with the minimal homebrew possible second (feats, spells, etc), and will only allow a full homebrew class or system if there is absolutely no other way to realize their concept. (But by that point I'll have already attempted switching to a different system like FATE or M&M.)

I do feel as though it's probably going to be more work on your part if you're going through the rules to help the player build their character concept (which, like the druid in the example, might not even fit the concept for quite a while), than it is to look over the class they are wanting to emulate. I mean, unless you know the rules like the back of your hand, which is perfectly possible.

I've never played more than a few levels of 3.5 let alone DM'd it for years and years. I'm not the best judge of the power of a class, feat or spell. I can read things and think they are much more powerful than they actually are. Or write something off as being weaker than they actually are. At least when it's published material I can come to a forum like this one and research it. And the people who reply to me about it or who are already talking about it have the benefit of having used it in play at some point. This isn't the case with homebrew material.

True, having easy input is definitely a bonus. I have asked a couple times about homebrew classes and april fools classes (as published by a first party publisher) and have gotten responses.

So no if a player comes to me with a homebrew idea I'm probably not going to entertain the thought. There are certainly things in the published game that I don't like and am willing to change myself. But in that case it only affects gameplay in ways I am comfortable with and am in control of.

Of course, you can also change the homebrew as well.

eggynack

2016-11-04, 08:27 PM

OK. So, you use a Druid to be a "'Become a weapon sometimes that bestows benefits to its wielder' class"...The difference? Having to fiddle with more alternate class features and rules, and "dumpster diving for monsters"? ...That is somehow "better", when the effects are the same?
Yeah. I had to think to do it. If you value thinking in the realm of character construction, then non-homebrew is better. If you don't, then that's your prerogative.

So like, is a regular old druid equally as invalid as a homebrew class, because it's not "creative" enough? What about a wizard that just said "Screw prcs. I've got more than I already need" and went Wizard 20?
I'm not saying it's invalid because it's uncreative. I'm saying it's uncreative because it's uncreative. And a problem with homebrew is that it limits the degree to which you can be creative. You always have that wacky weapon druid in a non-homebrew game, and that's super creative, but if you can just write, "I can be a weapon," on your sheet, then even that super weird character build lacks creativity in the building of it. Which, in turn, implies that the character building process in general is uncreative under these non-restrictions. Which, in my opinion, sucks, cause I like that process.

You only tossed in 2 extra bits there. Is that all you need to be considered "creative"? Well, take random prc 1 and random prc 2. Done. Toss in some manifesting for good measure.

And is reading an acf in one book somehow more inherently "creative" than reading it in another?
The thing that makes it creative is that these things weren't apparently intended for these purposes. Whoever came up with symbionts probably never came up with the notion of transforming into them, and they weren't likely thinking of symbionts when they came up with aberration wild shape. That sort of transformation is key to the creativity of character building.

SethoMarkus

2016-11-04, 08:28 PM

I do feel as though it's probably going to be more work on your part if you're going through the rules to help the player build their character concept (which, like the druid in the example, might not even fit the concept for quite a while), than it is to look over the class they are wanting to emulate. I mean, unless you know the rules like the back of your hand, which is perfectly possible.

Oh, certainly. But thw work is never my primary reason for turning away from homebrew. What turns me away is that first bit of my post; if I allow homebrew for one player, I have no justification to disallow another player. Most of the time this probably isn't going to be a problem, but I'd rather avoid it altogether than risk it.

That just goes for my own preferences. If another DM decides that they are ok with homebree in general, I find no fault with them or their playstyle.

Necroticplague

2016-11-04, 08:32 PM

Because, chances are, even if you're relatively open-ended with what sources you allow from official content, you'll usually end up with a fairly finite,well-known combination of things. Anything that's really broken is well-known, thanks to the online community having years to chew through it, so you can usually spot broken things easily. Meanwhile, vetting homebrew requires going over every aspect of it with a fine tooth comb, essentially trying to simulate the years of ripping apart by community by yourself. It's a very intensive process for a DM to do. And i find allowing any homebrew typically means having to vet a lot of homebrew, because homebrew tends to be more tailor-made exactly for a build, while sticking with official materials doesn't have as close of a fit (i.e, ozodrin would be hard to get something similar without sacrificing a lot in theme with official material), and is thus more desirable. So it's easier to just stick with official materials, letting the index of years of community be my vetters, instead of going through the exhaustive effor of vetting on my own.

Or to sum up:official material has already been vetted by years of optimization communities far more competently than I could vet a piece of brew on my own in a reasonable time.

SangoProduction

2016-11-04, 08:33 PM

Yeah. I had to think to do it. If you value thinking in the realm of character construction, then non-homebrew is better. If you don't, then that's your prerogative.

I'm not saying it's invalid because it's uncreative. I'm saying it's uncreative because it's uncreative. And a problem with homebrew is that it limits the degree to which you can be creative. You always have that wacky weapon druid in a non-homebrew game, and that's super creative, but if you can just write, "I can be a weapon," on your sheet, then even that super weird character build lacks creativity in the building of it. Which, in turn, implies that the character building process in general is uncreative under these non-restrictions. Which, in my opinion, sucks, cause I like that process.

The thing that makes it creative is that these things weren't apparently intended for these purposes. Whoever came up with symbionts probably never came up with the notion of transforming into them, and they weren't likely thinking of symbionts when they came up with aberration wild shape. That sort of transformation is key to the creativity of character building.

Well, ultimately, you still just pulled text and put it on your character sheet, that amounted to "you turn in to a weapon".

ekarney

2016-11-04, 08:34 PM

Basically, if a DM allows all first party (Save DragMag with discussed exceptions)

That's approximately 4,000 feats, and 900 classes and prestige classes. Fortunately, the internet has already put in the hard yards and found and discussed all the broken and abusable so some quick google-fu will reveal anything suspicious surrounding a players choice.

You add homebrew into the mix - a seething mass of amateur level written work. A large amount of which was created with the sole intention of "Making my super cool overpowered character idea all in one class". Whilst some of it is decent, it's a massive pain for the DM.

If I even use homebrew it's either my own, which is limited to thematic classes or those from Morph's list.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-11-04, 08:34 PM

So... yeah. Disallowing homebrew isn't really about calling it "bad" or "overpowered", I think. Instead, I think it's about the unknown. GMs already jump through so many hoops to make their games work and make things fun for players that homebrew options can break the proverbial camel's back.
This is a good reason, and I say this as someone who's homebrewed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329161) pretty (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357810-Chopping-Down-the-Christmas-Tree-Low-Magic-Item-Rules) extensively. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?361270-STaRS-the-Simple-TAbletop-Roleplaying-System-5-0) Published material is certainly no more trustworthy than homebrew, but 3.5 is so extensively written about that I can probably google any option in the game and find some good analysis of it. Homebrew... if you're lucky, it's from a site like this, and you can read through a thread of reviews and feedback to get a similar sense of things, but not always.

Still, I think it's worth considering when you're looking into things. I've seen really good stuff on these boards; things that put any official material to shame in terms of mechanics, fluff, or both. And as has been pointed out, it's not like official material is really any less of a crapshot; it's just a familiar one.

EDIT: Also, as a 'brewer myself... I very much resent the repeated implication that all homebrew is written for the purpose of "ridiculous amounts of power" or "making my super cool overpowered character idea." Most of what I saw, in my years of frequenting the boards here, was honestly well-intentioned; where it was too strong it was pretty much always out of ignorance and quickly corrected given feedback.

Yahzi

2016-11-04, 09:06 PM

I don't get what peoples' deal is with homebrew.
The whole reason I DM is because I want to play with my homebrew. I don't allow other people's. I don't allow books outside of Core. I don't even allow some things in Core. I wrote 30,000 words of my own homebrew. That's probably enough for a campaign or two. :smallbiggrin:

On the other hand, players are supposed to work with the DM to develop new stuff during the game; their actions are supposed to leave a mark on the world, and sometimes that means creating a new ability or even class.

Echch

2016-11-04, 09:20 PM

The problem with homebrew, as most people have said, is the lack of control: There are no homebrew content handbooks and the homebrew stuff has an even higher tendency to be broken.

A very creative DM can work around that, but even if a DM considers himself competent enough to deal with homebrew, it's very likely that:
1. He doesn't want to deal with it.
2. It doesn't fit his campaign.
3. He simply ISN'T competent enough (I tried to run an all-allowed homebrew included campaign once... it went up in flames since I couldn't keep the 7 different cohorts of a character from each other, turning into a huge RP-mess)

Please note that when a DM says "everything except homebrew is allowed" that normally means "I've read all the handbooks and any good choice is banned". The last "all allowed" epic level campaign had our characters so gimped that I willingly played a commoner 20/Aristocrat 1 because I was at least allowed to have decent feats with that one.

eggynack

2016-11-04, 09:27 PM

Well, ultimately, you still just pulled text and put it on your character sheet, that amounted to "you turn in to a weapon".
There's a difference between something that amounts to a concept because you figure out that you can fit it together that way and something that just is a concept, which is explicitly your character with no real work on the build end. I mean, I thought your problem with the symbiont thing would be that it's not exactly becoming a weapon. The fact is that it doesn't fit exactly implies pretty strongly that this is a different thing from a simple homebrewed class. And it's not really about this one thing. This one thing is just a thing you seemed to think wasn't possible within the system. It's about a whole character which you presumably want themed in a certain way. Becoming a weapon is just part one. Maybe from there you theme yourself around the notion of materials, with earth and metal themed spells. Maybe you work with various buff spells so you can get some variation in your team helping. Maybe you're really just using your nature as equipment to hide the fact that your team has crazy druid magic, and so your spells are relatively generic, or maybe angled towards stealth or hiding. I dunno the specifics, because what you wanted wasn't that fleshed out. But what I do know is that none of it is coming prepackaged, with the creative element essentially done for you.

Look, I'm not saying that this particular plan is the height of creativity. The example desire was yours, not mine. What I'm saying is that access to these already packaged character concepts means that you don't even try to find a weird solution. You don't have to figure out that you can fit this square peg into that round hole. Which is nice if your goal isn't figuring out how to fit pegs into holes, but less nice if you really appreciate that problem for its intrinsic value, as well as for the fact that the process gets you a cool and unique peg-hole apparatus.

Luccan

2016-11-04, 09:40 PM

I'm gonna second the "devil you know" argument. Even in the case of good stuff. If I build a campaign with certain rule and character ability assumptions, letting people just throw in anything they want (even if I look over it first) isn't necessarily a good thing. That said, I've never understood allowing all published material, either. It seems like a lot to keep track of. Still, it's really up to the DM (and the group as a whole, to some degree). I see no reason homebrew should automatically be allowed anymore than it should be banned. It's a personal taste issue and I think a large number of people aren't willing to go through all the homebrew their players could find to ensure they didn't have any surprises (you should probably have an idea of what your player can do even in a completely nonhomebrew game IMO, you can tailor challenges to them better that way). That said, if you allow all material and the homebrew doesn't require you to be familiar with a bunch of different new rules, so long as it is reasonable, I see no reason to disallow it.

Treat it as you would any WOTC or other material. Make very clear what is allowed before the game starts and if a player wants to make use of something outside of that, discuss it. Maybe it won't work out this time, but it might be worth considering for a future game.

Lorddenorstrus

2016-11-04, 11:21 PM

I've been working on a homebrewed rebalance of the base classes to shove them all towards tier 3 gameplay which is the desired power range. I test it with people in One shots and if it passes add it to a pdf that all my players have access to. It's incomplete and a major WIP but, I can't imagine playing with out it. People actually like playing martial characters now... since spellcasting doesn't equate to mini god anymore. Homebrews success depends on your group and the amount of effort put in to make sure it's balanced.

stanprollyright

2016-11-04, 11:32 PM

Here's why I personally don't use homebrew:

I can google any feat or item or ACF written by WotC and get a full text of it as the first result, and all the other results are threads devoted to tricks and builds that involve that thing.

There are still lots of first party options I have yet to try.

Milo v3

2016-11-05, 12:07 AM

I'm a homebrewer, but I'm far more likely to allow 1st party content than homebrew simply because I know the ins and outs of 1st party content better so if a problem arises tweaking it or completely remaking it isn't that difficult. I do still have a list of auto-allowed third-party content (including non-published homebrew from forums), since while sturgeon's law applies to homebrew, there is still the good 10%.

Zaydos

2016-11-05, 02:27 AM

As someone who brews a lot I'm going to nth Afgncaap5's unknown thing.

I am also going to add that a lot of homebrew has things that just aren't written clearly or with a comprehension of the rules so that it is impossible to tell how it is supposed to work. While this happens sometimes in official materials, it is less common.

Finally 90% of it is pretty bad (mine included).

Then again my stance on official is 'I don't know everything broken in the game, Core I have a list of banned/nerfed spells, and ways to make monk almost playable, outside of Core ask first the answer is usually yes, but I want the chance to check it out first'.

Zanos

2016-11-05, 02:56 AM

If you're looking at LFG ads on this forum specifically, those games tend to get a lot of applications per actual players in them, and I doubt DMs want to ad an additional hurdle of checking homebrew for the applications they're sifting through already.

I tend to run slightly higher optimization games when I run, and I'd really prefer not to look through homebrew with all the baggage of thinking about how it will interact with existing material. Sure, a class might seemed balanced on it's own, until you realize there's a feat printed somewhere that, based on the way the class was written, ruins the intended balance of the entire thing. Plus I'd also rather not get into a discussion about why X homebrew is allowed and Y wasn't.

Plus, the homebrew people actually ask to use is generally terrible. Things I've actually been asked to play include shinigami (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shinigami_(3.5e_Class)), vizards (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Vizard_Shinigami_(DnD_Prestige_Class)), magical girls (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Magical_Girl_(3.5e_Class)), whatever this is supposed to be (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Threat_(3.5e_Class)), a class literally called Grim Reaper (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Grim_Reaper_(3.5e_Class)), and naruto ninjas (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Naruto_Shinobi,_Variant_(3.5e_Class)). And yes, people have actually asked for these specific classes. In serious games. A good general rule might to not let anyone who uses dandwiki in your game.

Milo v3

2016-11-05, 03:48 AM

A good general rule might to not let anyone who uses dandwiki in your game.
I still feel shame over my first few homebrews (some of which were on Dandwiki), I was such a hack.

Manyasone

2016-11-05, 03:51 AM

What about 'dnd-wiki.org'? As I understand it, it's a bit different that the unholy cesspool dandwiki is

Milo v3

2016-11-05, 04:03 AM

What about 'dnd-wiki.org'? As I understand it, it's a bit different that the unholy cesspool dandwiki is

Same quality, just less content. 99% of it's pages are copy-pastes from dandwiki, they just moved because they don't like dandwiki's owner rather than it having actually good quality.

Manyasone

2016-11-05, 04:18 AM

Same quality, just less content. 99% of it's pages are copy-pastes from dandwiki, they just moved because they don't like dandwiki's owner rather than it having actually good quality.

I see, thanks man

Fizban

2016-11-05, 05:28 AM

Well that's annoying, apparently I lost my post. Let's try this again but probably worse.

Plus, the homebrew people actually ask to use is generally terrible. Things I've actually been asked to play include shinigami (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shinigami_(3.5e_Class)), vizards (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Vizard_Shinigami_(DnD_Prestige_Class)), magical girls (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Magical_Girl_(3.5e_Class)), whatever this is supposed to be (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Threat_(3.5e_Class)), a class literally called Grim Reaper (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Grim_Reaper_(3.5e_Class)), and naruto ninjas (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Naruto_Shinobi,_Variant_(3.5e_Class)). And yes, people have actually asked for these specific classes. In serious games. A good general rule might to not let anyone who uses dandwiki in your game.
And here at GitP we have good homebrew for at least half of that. Magical girls coming out our ears, and while I don't care for either Bleach or Naruto, I've seen decent ToB brew for both. Nothing easy for the guy that wants to play literally the grim reaper (or shinigami japanese grim reaper), but if you can tackle the Mythos system there's the Olethrofex. Only particularly unique thing is that "Threat" class, which seems to be some sort of tank with virtual size increases for both rolls and damage, with a very awkward lightweight smite: it's got a low floor like a fighter but only goes off the rails if you let it stack more size increases from other sources.

Not a bad idea though: if a player asks for a derivative homebrew but the one they've got is garbage, search the same thing on GitP (or other forum of choice I guess) because someone's probably done better already and it's just waiting for someone to find it.

ben-zayb

2016-11-05, 06:32 AM

There's a difference between something that amounts to a concept because you figure out that you can fit it together that way and something that just is a concept, which is explicitly your character with no real work on the build end. I mean, I thought your problem with the symbiont thing would be that it's not exactly becoming a weapon. The fact is that it doesn't fit exactly implies pretty strongly that this is a different thing from a simple homebrewed class. And it's not really about this one thing. This one thing is just a thing you seemed to think wasn't possible within the system. It's about a whole character which you presumably want themed in a certain way. Becoming a weapon is just part one. Maybe from there you theme yourself around the notion of materials, with earth and metal themed spells. Maybe you work with various buff spells so you can get some variation in your team helping. Maybe you're really just using your nature as equipment to hide the fact that your team has crazy druid magic, and so your spells are relatively generic, or maybe angled towards stealth or hiding. I dunno the specifics, because what you wanted wasn't that fleshed out. But what I do know is that none of it is coming prepackaged, with the creative element essentially done for you.

Look, I'm not saying that this particular plan is the height of creativity. The example desire was yours, not mine. What I'm saying is that access to these already packaged character concepts means that you don't even try to find a weird solution. You don't have to figure out that you can fit this square peg into that round hole. Which is nice if your goal isn't figuring out how to fit pegs into holes, but less nice if you really appreciate that problem for its intrinsic value, as well as for the fact that the process gets you a cool and unique peg-hole apparatus.
And you used one of the "can do anything" class to do this thing. Congrats?

I mean, I certainly get where you're coming from, and seeing creative and original executions of builds is probably the reason why I like following ICitP and its derivatives. Even my submissions are nothing like you usually see in optimization boards (and half of them don't rely on "do anything" classes).

But, see, not everyone derives their fun from being creative and from using classes that have more wealth of options that multiple tiers of classes combined; otherwise barbarians wouldn't be so much used.

eggynack

2016-11-05, 10:35 AM

And you used one of the "can do anything" class to do this thing. Congrats?

The goal here did require form altering on a fundamental level, to be fair. I suppose one could do it with wild shape ranger, though you'd need to get tiny forms, likely through MoMF. City soul is very specifically druid though.

But, see, not everyone derives their fun from being creative and from using classes that have more wealth of options that multiple tiers of classes combined; otherwise barbarians wouldn't be so much used.
Again, part of my issue here is with the fact that this eliminates the notion of build creativity to some extent. If you don't want to make use of the fact that the game allows this sort of creativity, that's your prerogative, but I appreciate the fact that the option is available within the context of the game. I also somewhat doubt that all creativity is limited to druids. Such solutions just tend to be my go-to, because that's my main area of knowledge.

Waker

2016-11-05, 10:57 AM

When it comes to 1st party material or homebrew, my view is largely the same. I review all the material the player is using and check their character sheets for hijinks. I have a pretty unrestrictive DMing style, but my number one rule when I run a game is "Don't p*ss me off". As long as the player is upfront with me, not trying to pull some infinite combo or other nonsense, then the only thing I really care about is that the players are having fun.
Now I do some homebrewing. I do it to stretch my creative muscles a bit, to fix what I perceive as flaws in the game or at least streamline some other processes. I've not made a homebrew class that "turns into a weapon" yet, but if I did I would do so to give the players an option other than using a relatively odd acf or prevent a character showing up with a binder full of pages listing all of their alternate forms. Saying that you can do just about anything in D&D with enough book diving may be true, but players shouldn't be penalized because they aren't book savvy enough to know about how various obscure sources combine to create the effect they want. Especially if a homebrewer has already created what they want in one convenient page. Finding a way to make your character work within the 1st party rules is fine, it may even give you an "Eureka" moment that you gotta pat yourself on the back for finding it. Be that as it may, when I play or run a game, my concern isn't character creation; it's character play. Why use a weird combination of feats, races and/or acf to accomplish a goal when I could just brew something, get it reviewed and use that?

As a note, any references to book diving, combining weird class features, blah blah, isn't specifically referring to the transform Druid that eggynack mentioned. I brought it up since it has been the only specific example anything has used in the thread, but my statements could refer to any other future ones. I'm not gonna respond to any tangents about the druid example since I don't care and it isn't pertinent to the thread as a whole.

Zanos

2016-11-05, 01:11 PM

Well that's annoying, apparently I lost my post. Let's try this again but probably worse.

And here at GitP we have good homebrew for at least half of that. Magical girls coming out our ears, and while I don't care for either Bleach or Naruto, I've seen decent ToB brew for both. Nothing easy for the guy that wants to play literally the grim reaper (or shinigami japanese grim reaper), but if you can tackle the Mythos system there's the Olethrofex. Only particularly unique thing is that "Threat" class, which seems to be some sort of tank with virtual size increases for both rolls and damage, with a very awkward lightweight smite: it's got a low floor like a fighter but only goes off the rails if you let it stack more size increases from other sources.

Not a bad idea though: if a player asks for a derivative homebrew but the one they've got is garbage, search the same thing on GitP (or other forum of choice I guess) because someone's probably done better already and it's just waiting for someone to find it.
For the record, if someone asked to play a magical girl/shinigami/grim reaper and it was decent home brew from Giant, I would probably still say no because it doesn't really fit into my campaign unless you're changing the fluff, which the people who ask for that kind of stuff aren't big on.

Troacctid

2016-11-05, 01:25 PM

I'm running a game right now where my players asked for some real stinky homebrew and my hands were a mostly tied because I was taking over from a previous DM who had already green-lit all of it. Roll a Concentration check and add it to damage on every attack. Add your ranks in Bluff to your AC. Gain 7th level spell effects at will at ECL 4. It was not pretty, folks.

Darth Ultron

2016-11-05, 01:46 PM

Finally 90% of it is pretty bad.

This is a big reason to not include homebrew. And it's not like you compare it to official published stuff, after all there are whole books that are just full of bad. But then I don't include them in my games either.

P.F.

2016-11-05, 01:49 PM

Again, part of my issue here is with the fact that this eliminates the notion of build creativity to some extent. If you don't want to make use of the fact that the game allows this sort of creativity, that's your prerogative, but I appreciate the fact that the option is available within the context of the game.

I have to take issue with the definition of "creativity." In this instance, "creativity" is defined as the ability to use hyper-constrained rulesets to produce myriad and unexpected designs. This sort of creativity is often called "innovation" or "lateral thinking." In the fine arts, it could be compared to Haiku or collage.

For a homebrew enthusiast, "creativity" means the ability to create something without the constraints of using existing templates. This sort of creativity is often called "imagination" or "originality." It is comparable to free verse poetry or abstract painting. The lack of formalism does not eliminate creativity to any extent, but does permit other forms of it.

Now to be sure, these definitions are not mutually exclusive, nor is either more correct than the other. However, when it comes to homebrew D&D classes, there is a tremendous temptation to decry attempts to write classes such as the Naruto Ninja or the Dark Tower Gunslinger as hackneyed and unoriginal. While I can sympathize with the exasperation in dealing with yet another Naruto-obsessed gamer, the popularity (or relative obscurity) of the source inspiration doesn't make the desire to represent it in other media any less (or more) creative. Look, for example, at Peter Paul Rubens' Temptation of Christ, a well-known scene from one of the most widely read narratives in Western society, which has been depicted numerous times before and since.

It is not the subject, nor the scene, nor the constraints of contract and media which make this painting so creative and original; it is the unexpected perspective and dynamic posture of the figures which make it a significant work of art. Similarly, each homebrew class, spell, or ability, should be evaluated on its own merits. A homebrew class is not less creative for having "been done already" or for being "doable with existing material." One could easily make a "Temptation of Christ" by pasting stock images of Jesus, the Devil, and a stone onto a generic desert/wilderness background. Indeed, such a collage could even be done so as create a work which is exciting, original, and pleasing to the eye. But it still would not be Rubens' Temptation. Even if both are equally creative, equally good, equally special, the two are absolutely not interchangable with each other.

Often of course, both the homebrew and the existing-rules builds are done badly. The formal constraints of haiku don't stop people from writing bad haikus, and the lack of form in free verse doesn't make it any harder to write angsty high-school poetry.

Finally, saying "There's a way to do something kind of like what you want which works okay and is only moderately underpowered, if you refluff this ability and are higher level than the game you want to use it in" is really not satisfying to many of the players who want to do something which they don't see covered in the rules.

tl;dr: "Creativity." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sure, a class might seemed balanced on it's own, until you realize there's a feat printed somewhere that, based on the way the class was written, ruins the intended balance of the entire thing.

This is why I use the homebrew-combo rule. Unless that feat is specifically mentioned in the homebrew, it doesn't work.

Waker

2016-11-05, 03:59 PM

Truthiness
Very well said.

Finally, saying "There's a way to do something kind of like what you want which works okay and is only moderately underpowered, if you refluff this ability and are higher level than the game you want to use it in" is really not satisfying to many of the players who want to do something which they don't see covered in the rules.
This in particular is a big reason that I like homebrewing. Sometimes you get an idea in your head for a character, maybe you read it in a book, saw a movie or had a mild hallucination from a concussion. Whatever the inspiration, you've got a cool idea and you wanna run with it. Oh, but you have to dip in three classes and use this one feat from an obscure splatbook. Not to mention it doesn't even come online fully til 8th level. If only there was some way to cut out all the chaff and just focus on the idea.
Sure, some homebrewers are out for goofy ultimate cosmic power type reasons, but a lot of us just say, "Man, I wish I could play a Windrunner from the Stormlight Archive."

A point I forgot to make earlier is in response to the complaints about research. Now of course depending on your source, contacting the homebrewer might be difficult, but in others its remarkably easy. I'm on every day practically, so if someone had a question they needed answering for one of my classes, messaging me would get a response fairly quickly. None of that debate over RAW/RAI either, not too many 1st party sources could say the same.

I'm running a game right now where my players asked for some real stinky homebrew and my hands were a mostly tied because I was taking over from a previous DM who had already green-lit all of it. Roll a Concentration check and add it to damage on every attack. Add your ranks in Bluff to your AC. Gain 7th level spell effects at will at ECL 4. It was not pretty, folks.
That's unpleasant, but not necessarily the fault of the homebrew itself (terrible though it may be). It seems more the issue that you have to carry all of their baggage. If the previous DM had some stupid houserules or was very generous with his interpretation of ruling, you could still be in for a headache.

Bucky

2016-11-05, 04:08 PM

You can aggressively refluff first-party material for a magical girl or grim reaper. (Cleric and Assassin base, respectively)

Troacctid

2016-11-05, 04:12 PM

I'd probably use a warlock base for a magical girl, but to each her own, I suppose.

digiman619

2016-11-06, 04:34 AM

Personally, I'd suggest an Aegis from Dreamscarred Press if I wanted a Magical Girl (though it could also really easily used to make a Sentai/Power Ranger)

Manyasone

2016-11-06, 04:57 AM

Personally, I'd suggest an Aegis from Dreamscarred Press if I wanted a Magical Girl (though it could also really easily used to make a Sentai/Power Ranger)

And a Soulknife for a Shinigami (Bleach) if one was so inclined

A.A.King

2016-11-06, 05:36 AM

I have to take issue with the definition of "creativity."

Actually you don't 'have' to at all, you want to take issue. If we are going to be pedantic with words let's be pedantic shall we?

tl;dr: "Creativity." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The word means exactly what he thinks it means, it is all about context which you conveniently ignored.

We are generally talking about the creativity of the player, of the builder and not the brewer. Your rather long winded and in my opinion questionable bit about poetry is nice and all, but it is irrelevant because it tries to compare two very different things. It tries to compare the creativity that is required to be able to play your original idea as close to how you imagined it as possible with the creativity of the homebrew which the player himself had nothing to do with. Nobody is saying that an individual homebrew isn't innovative, we're saying that using homebrew (which is very different from homebrewing, something you didn't seem to understand) isn't creative.

Especially when we consifer your rule

This is why I use the homebrew-combo rule. Unless that feat is specifically mentioned in the homebrew, it doesn't work.

Which means that using homebrew specifically disallowes original and creative thought. You have to use the combos the creator came up with. To use your own extended analogy: the painting Rubens made may be considered creative (atleast you think it is), but you aren't Rubens, you are just some person who hung a "paint-by-the-numbers" version of it on your wall and called it your own.

Milo v3

2016-11-06, 06:07 AM

Which means that using homebrew specifically disallowes original and creative thought. You have to use the combos the creator came up with. To use your own extended analogy: the painting Rubens made may be considered creative (atleast you think it is), but you aren't Rubens, you are just some person who hung a "paint-by-the-numbers" version of it on your wall and called it your own.

You really should have told the gramarie community this, that way they wouldn't have come up with tonnes of ideas for devices and combinations of abilities that the creator of gramarie never did.

A.A.King

2016-11-06, 07:25 AM

You really should have told the gramarie community this, that way they wouldn't have come up with tonnes of ideas for devices and combinations of abilities that the creator of gramarie never did.

I might, if it was my rule I was quoting or if I knew these Gramarists. If the solution to the fact that a class seems perfectly balanced on it's own until you introduce the official but more obscure feats the creator of the class forgot about is to only allow the combos/feats specifically mentioned in the homebrew you're killing creativity. The Gramarie is certainly not a class on its own and as such not subject to the original statement, the P.F. limiting rule or my counter claim.

Doctor Awkward

2016-11-06, 09:53 AM

Note: After typing this up, I realized it sounded a bit "confrontational". That was not my intention. I was simply spelling out that I can not justify a reason to ban all homebrew. I am legitimately curious as to the "why" that people do so.

-------

I don't get what peoples' deal is with homebrew. I often see "You can have any and all printed sources, even Dragon Magazine...but you can't use homebrew." Like, I could get restricting sources to those that you have read and already understood, but the likelihood of these people having understood every single printed source is...OK, considering this forum, and the amount of time since the release...still pretty terrible, except for a select group of people.

So, if you're going to read over whatever bs they pull out of *obscure sourcebook #24* anyway, then what's the difference? Hell, as we all know, the printed classes are absolute garbage as far as "balance" goes (and some are just plain garbage).

I mean, more often than not, homebrew classes are more thematic than powerful, with many being no more than a powerful Fighter, maybe with some light spell use thrown in here and there. I personally would use the Dragon homebrew class for a Dragon Cohort over using that really awkward system they set up in the actual source book.

Spheres of Power?

You could make the argument that they don't have quality control...but then I ask you...do you really think WotC did? Maybe in terms of editing and grammar...but Monk not being proficient in Unarmed Strike... There are many megathreads on this forum that document the dysfunctions in the written rules.

If you want to get technical with your definitions, you can make a case that nearly all printed material is "homebrew" of one fashion or another, even things in books with the WotC logo stamped on them. Categorizing things with labels like "official", or "first-party", or "printed material" just makes it easier to have defined categories to work with when considering what material to exclude from your games.

Most, by which I mean the vast majority, of homebrew falls into one of two categories:

1) Game-breaking. In the sense that it was created with no respect to system balance, or had no design philosophy behind it at all. It's just a collection of abilities the creator slapped together, and is such a clearly superior choice to all other printed material that no optimizer in their right mind would consider not using it.

2) Redundant. The parallel end of the spectrum wherein the creator did not know enough about the system to get all of the things he wanted to with printed material and just slapped together features they wanted into a much simpler package. Regardless of other considerations most DM's don't like to allow these either because because it opens the door at your gaming table for things that fall under point 1, usually with the argument, "Well you let that guy use his homebrew!"

Having said that: there is such a thing as good homebrew. Some of it involves unusual adaptations of existing classes. I once came upon a psionic variant for Jade Phoenix Mage that I quite liked and played in a one-shot game that worked very well. Te rest typically makes use of unusual applications of material that doesn't already exist anywhere else (see: Stranger with the Burning Eyes (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Stranger_with_the_Burning_Eyes_(3.5e_Prestige_Clas s))).

There are other outliers, sure, but in general I would surmise most DM's find reviewing homebrew to be almost as much of a headache as explaining to their players why he is allowing one thing but not another. So the easiest answer is just to do without. Especially since most character concepts can be met with the plethora of printed material already available.

P.F.

2016-11-06, 01:42 PM

Actually you don't 'have' to at all, you want to take issue. If we are going to be pedantic with words let's be pedantic shall we?

No, I have to, in the sense of "find it necessary to do the specified thing," as a prerequisite for furthering an informed discussion on the topic at hand. What's more, while I can accept the minimal pedantry required to define our terms in the course of a civil debate, I must reject the distraction of subsequently debating the relative merits of have/should/needs/must et cetera.

The word means exactly what he thinks it means, it is all about context which you conveniently ignored.

A definition which is so narrow as to preclude "imagining something, then writing it on a blank sheet of paper" is certainly too narrow. I disagree with eggynack's assertion that simply writing the ability you want on your sheet is "uncreative," but I recognize and value the creativity in using the existing rules to produce unique and original effects. I and sympathize with his creative talents being marginalized by players who essentially ignore the build process and hand-wave away any intended restrictions.

The context which I addressed was the context eggynack used:
You always have that wacky weapon druid in a non-homebrew game, and that's super creative, but if you can just write, "I can be a weapon," on your sheet, then even that super weird character build lacks creativity in the building of it. Which, in turn, implies that the character building process in general is uncreative under these non-restrictions.
You are inferring that "homebrew" can only be applied to third-party material published on message boards, wikis, or as online documents. In this context, eggynack's contention that homebrew eliminates creativity would apply equally to all third-party sources, or even all non-core sources. It's arbitrary where we draw the line: third party print source more or less creative than Wizards-only? Wizards+Paizo? Wouldn't restricting to core make the build the most creative? This is the definition of creativity which I feel bears further consideration.

We are generally talking about the creativity of the player, of the builder and not the brewer. Your rather long winded and in my opinion questionable bit about poetry is nice and all, but it is irrelevant because it tries to compare two very different things. It tries to compare the creativity that is required to be able to play your original idea as close to how you imagined it as possible with the creativity of the homebrew which the player himself had nothing to do with. Nobody is saying that an individual homebrew isn't innovative, we're saying that using homebrew (which is very different from homebrewing, something you didn't seem to understand) isn't creative.

Now here is where the real issue appears to be. At my tables we typically use 2nd-party homebrew, what you are terming "homebrewing," with 3rd-party homebrew undergoing a somewhat more rigorous examination than obscure 1st-party sources.

On the matter of differentiating between homebrew, homebrew-ing, 1st party, and 3rd party material, I would contend that the only difference is the publisher. Some of it is good, some is bad, a lot is in-between. Sturgeon's Law applies equally to all.

Starbuck_II

2016-11-06, 03:03 PM

Actually you don't 'have' to at all, you want to take issue. If we are going to be pedantic with words let's be pedantic shall we?

The word means exactly what he thinks it means, it is all about context which you conveniently ignored.

We are generally talking about the creativity of the player, of the builder and not the brewer. Your rather long winded and in my opinion questionable bit about poetry is nice and all, but it is irrelevant because it tries to compare two very different things. It tries to compare the creativity that is required to be able to play your original idea as close to how you imagined it as possible with the creativity of the homebrew which the player himself had nothing to do with. Nobody is saying that an individual homebrew isn't innovative, we're saying that using homebrew (which is very different from homebrewing, something you didn't seem to understand) isn't creative.

Isn't that just cognitive bias. Because it is "your" homebrew (homebrewing, whatev') you are cool with it. But if it is someone you don't know, you have an issue.

Shouldn't homebrew be rejected by its own merits despite that?

Now the saying all homebrew is suspect is fine since you are judging them all equally.
But saying your groups is cool, but other groups isn't because he is your player seems silly.

A.A.King

2016-11-06, 06:14 PM

Isn't that just cognitive bias. Because it is "your" homebrew (homebrewing, whatev') you are cool with it. But if it is someone you don't know, you have an issue.

Shouldn't homebrew be rejected by its own merits despite that?

Now the saying all homebrew is suspect is fine since you are judging them all equally.
But saying your groups is cool, but other groups isn't because he is your player seems silly.
Sorry I think you misunderstood me. Nowhere am I talking about my or my groups homebrew. I am comparing on the one hand somebody chosing to play a class somebody else homebrewed (which may be a very creative class) vs somebody achieving in the same effect using only official content. The only homebrew I make is moonshine.

It's an unfortunate misunderstading, because I do agree with your statements. It would be wrong/silly to say that homebrewing is bad except for the stuff my group produces and you should always have issues with people you don't know.

The context which I addressed was the context eggynack used:
You are inferring that "homebrew" can only be applied to third-party material published on message boards, wikis, or as online documents. In this context, eggynack's contention that homebrew eliminates creativity would apply equally to all third-party sources, or even all non-core sources. It's arbitrary where we draw the line: third party print source more or less creative than Wizards-only? Wizards+Paizo? Wouldn't restricting to core make the build the most creative? This is the definition of creativity which I feel bears further consideration.

The difference between any of your other possible 'high points of creativity' and homebrew is that any limitation to specific books generally means that you are allowed to do whatever you want within those clear limitations. Even limitations within those books are still clear from the onset: No Polymorph and No Shivering touch are still clear limitations there for everyone. Homebrew however is a seemingly infinite amount of options limited only by "DM Discretion". In the first situation your creativity is required to make your idea happen, in the second all that is really required are your google skills. "I want to play somebody who can do X and using the creative combination of options x, y & z basically allows me to do X" VS "I want to do X, Brewer-X thought of the same thing and made a class that does X, now I can do X".

Waker

2016-11-06, 06:30 PM

As far as the comments about homebrew interacting with 1st party material in unintended ways, I'd do the same thing I do when players make unexpected combos with 1st party material in general. If it was unintentional, we have a good laugh and tweak the rules a bit. If the player was trying to sneak it by me and win the game with an infinite combo or some other nonsense, they get penalized. The end. I mean, if the DM is allowing homebrew, then its already implied that there is a bit of leeway with the rules.

Endarire

2016-11-07, 12:52 AM

I was pro-homebrew for awhile because I was in charge of making this homebrew.

Then, as I read more and more stuff for 3.x, I was anti-homebrew or at least averse to it because the official stuff could do so much without my tinkering, and official stuff was discussed a lot more!

Then I was a bit more pro-homebrew because I found things I wanted to do that the official rules didn't allow me to do in a convenient and fun manner. (See the Fun, Powerful Sorcerer (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qtn0MDtFABUY9upKwTZlzd9SOeNPF7DHfzv4DsAmaNQ/edit?usp=sharing) because I was tired of preparing spells and wanted a fun and powerful spontaneous arcane caster that was sorta like a CHA-based Wizard.)

Pex

2016-11-07, 01:05 AM

Authenticity.

People like to use official stuff. They can define for themselves what they want to tinker with (house rules), but they bought the game for the rules. They're going to use them. It's as unbiased as can be. Homebrew is someone else's opinions that even if they work in that person's game they are not guaranteed to work in yours. It is inherently suspicious.

icefractal

2016-11-07, 01:47 AM

For me, it's not that published material is necessarily more balanced than homebrew, but that the imbalances have already been discovered. If someone rolls up to the table with a Druid/Planar Shepherd, and someone else shows up with a Samurai, I know there's going to be an issue and can deal with it up front. If those were both homebrew classes, I'd have to read both, analyze the mechanics myself, and even then might miss some edge case. That's a lot more work!

And this applies even in comparison to published material I haven't read personally, because I can just quickly do a search and find several summaries and guides, which is unlikely to be the case for homebrew.

Although that said, I personally put Dragon material in the same bucket as homebrew - approved on a case by case basis. It's a lot less known and lot less written about, and it has enough over/under powered stuff that I don't just want to include it blindly.

ShurikVch

2016-11-07, 08:47 AM

Grod_The_Giant

2016-11-07, 08:52 AM

Karl Aegis

2016-11-07, 09:03 AM

I spent all this time and effort to get this collection of books that I'm not going to use 90% of anyways and you aren't going to bother with the 10% that's actually good? Why did I even get this game to begin with?

Also: some homebrew I've seen didn't have level relevant abilities. One was a prestige class based on the Assassin's Creed Eagle Assassin dude, was ten levels long, and didn't give any abilities that I didn't have when I qualified for the class in the first place. When your class is "sixth level character, but with ten more hitdice" I generally have to deny your homebrew. It's like the Monk. If Monk's got the abilities they got at level fifteen by the time they hit level 6 and got the rest of their abilities by level 10 I could see them being used. Yes, the level 15 flurry routine is what I expect out of a mid-level character. You can have rapid shot or snap kick and haste by now. Don't skimp on your options.

CaPtMalHammer

2016-11-07, 02:33 PM

Homebrew: This is a tough one!

The main reason people I think ban homebrew is they are worried about what I call the "Alpha Gamer" In board games this refers to someone who take over a game and tells everyone else how to play. This is the type of person who wants homebrew not for its roleplaying merits, which I will get to later, but rather as a way for his character to be better then anyone else's in everything.
This is the type of player who will lie about die rolls or fudge numbers to make himself look good in all situations. I do know I am using the masculine tense here and its not meant as an insult its just easier to type then His/Her all the time.
This isn't fair but who said life is fair? There are pros and cons to both printed material and to the Homebrew material. The biggest issue is that a few people have broken both and so DM's as a whole, not everyone because that is silly to make a absolute statement like that, tend to limit homebrew to get rid of that small bad element and have more control over their games. Its the actions of the few that ruin things for the many. But I would suggest that you take each and every game and group on its own merits. you of course can listen to my opinion or not. I am not saying in anyway that what I have to say is more important then anyone else. I am just giving my point of view. So please, no one get offended by this post. I am not here to attack or call out anyone.
There are 4 major categories in my mind that Homebrew and printed material needs to be discussed in.

1. Playability: This is I think the most important. Is the Material playable? Well first let me define what I mean by Playable. Playable refers to the ease of use and ease of understanding for even the newest of players. The material should be well written, spell checked, grammar checked and above all else needs to have each rule explained. The printed material, although it has some examples that prove the rule, for the most part spells each ability, each level and each advancement clearly. It has had editors and writers and publishers all going over it to make sure of that. Homebrew is left up to the person writing it. The person may be gifted and skilled and wrote something profound and very playable. The truth is however that 90% of the material online is vague, poorly written and not easily spelled out for anyone. So as a DM I think you need to take each situation 1 at a time when it comes to playability. I myself have written homebrew material and I myself have about 90% of it as crap. As a DM I add in custom items, custom advances, things that go against the written word of the books for theme or story telling but I try to make sure that each and every piece of homebrew is explained fully to the players and is easy to understand.

2. Balance: Does the material feel balanced in the group or party. This is a harder category to process. We all know that the written printed sources are not all balanced. Some classes are just better with optimization then others. The classes In these books though have had years to be vetted and we all know the limitations and strengths. We know what can break a combat...I'm looking at you Dread Necromancer...or what will derail a negation combat...AKA Frenzy Barbarian. The point is most DM's can work around them or there are builds with listed printed material to fix those issues. Some people also like to play a sub-optimal character build for roleplaying about combat and stats. Homebrew is tougher to evaluate. A DM has to look at everything from progression to how this will synergize with printed material. Is the class or feat that is homebrewed built to tweak an existing rule or to build upon a flaw and break something. The DM needs to take again each of these on a case by case basis. Myself as a DM, this is the biggest reason I ban Homebrew that I don't interject myself from games because I have enough to balance. Players needs, Stories, Combats, Work Schedules, Snacks, Meeting places etc that I can't sometime focus on an Alpha Gamer in sheep's clothing. This being said everyone needs to take it one step at a time and evaluate for your own group.

3. Creativity and Concept: This goes both ways. This goes from a DM's point of view in the world they have created and what is and is not available. this should be clear and concise at the beginning of the game. This can also be seen from a player's perspective. They have a great idea for a character. Say they want to play the suave pirate swinging from ropes with their mighty cutlass. Where the printed material has things like swashbuckler and dread pirate. These don't always give the right feel to what you seek. Now you can build around Swashbuckler or fighter and do what you want with feats. or take rouge in a direction not intended in the book and follow the printed rules and still get the same effect. You may also find something online in Homebrew that gives the exact feel you want. The DM would need to look at the above factors and determine if the Homebrew is correct. The statements made that printed material stifles creativity and so Homebrew should be allowed is false. If you are truly creative then the mechanics of the game don't really matter. I can be a Knight or pirate and not take a single class level in either of those classes. I can be a paladin and not actually take paladin levels. Names and labels don't make the character. the player's make the character. the story makes the character. So whether its homebrew or printed material its equal on the creative front.

4. The Person or Group: Printed material is easy to point to and show how it works and why. Homebrew is not always that easy to do. DM's need to take each person and group as its own entity. Is the person asking for homebrew doing it so they can play a concept or are they the "Alpha Gamer" wanting to break the game with silly notions and overpowered and vaguely written material. You need to look not only at the material itself but at who is asking to use it , who wrote it and why? This evaluation can determine a lot in the decision to allow homebrew or to stick with printed material for a game.

Final Thoughts: I guess this all boils down to the fact that groups choose a DM to tell a story and to have the player's characters grow and evolve. Should you allow Homebrew or not? Well that should be up to the DM in charge. If they allow it, its because they have researched and understand it and know it won't ruin the game. If not, they have a reason for it. If you can't play a game because a DM as said know to a Homebrew idea you had maybe you should look at yourself and not the material. A gamer should have fun just being part of the social group and part of the story. The DM is wielding this tapestry around you. Allow yourself to be emersed in it and take whatever mechanics are allowed and make them work to your most creative so you have fun and the group has fun.. No one likes an "Alpha Gamer". In the end. you have DM and what they say goes for that game.

Most important of all: HAVE FUN!

*Again this is just my opinions on the subject I am in no way calling anyone out or saying your opinions are less valid. You can choose to agree or disagree with what I have said it is your right to do so and your thoughts are just as valid.

ngilop

2016-11-07, 03:04 PM

I asked this question many moons ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?345480-Homebrew-Versus-3rd-Party)

But that was more focused on homebrew vs 3rd party.

In the end to me it simply boils down to somebody had money and somebody else did not. The ones with money got to publish things and the rest were not so lucky.

Hell most 3rd party/1st party that everybody here absolutely loves is nothing more than homebrew that managed to get published. (looking at you pathfinder and dreamscred press)

Just because 1st and 3rd party have the money to get stuff printed and pay somebody else to do a cursory spell/grammar check ( or have a grammarly account) does not, to me at least, mean they are inherently better than the guy who posted on GiTP his version of the Sorcerer or Warlock.

Hell the best class I have ever seen happens to be MammomAzrael;s Warlock and its homebrew, and IMO better than anything published by a 1st party let alone 3rd party.

Rite Publishing is AWESOME and I wish peeps would look at them more than some of the other way more crappy(IMO) 3rd party stuff.

I think it has to do with laziness most of all like extreme laziness. Peeps are just to damn lazy to take at max two minutes to look at a guy at his table who says 'can monks be proficient with their own fists and can flurry of blows be a standar action' because they inherently think that opening a book and seeing a class that can get 9th level spells at 13 through quircks is somehow better.

in my own real life experiences peeps that do blanket bans (not for story reasons i.e ancient rome so no Asian themed classes etc) are the same type of peeps who think wizards need more spells per day and fighters have too high of a BAB..