Why Homebrew in 3.5?

[inexorabletruth]

I've been running campaigns for a fairly long time now, and I've never allowed a homebrew in my games. And I have a laundry list of reasons for why I don't.

But my biggest reason is... I don't even get why it's necessary. Ok, 4E, 5E... I get it. Especially 4E. On the occasions I've played 4E, I was bored and frustrated with how rubber stamped all the classes felt. A homebrew is exactly what is needed to add some spice to the gameplay.

But 3.5 is sooooooo built out. You could play the game for a lifetime and never exploit allll the rules, all the classes, all the variants, all the PrCs. And thanks to the expanded splatbooks and Dragon Magazines, with all their specialized races/classes/feats/skills and variants on each of those, the potential to imagine a character you couldn't create within the currently existing official structure becomes infinitesimally small.

Now of course, I'm not saying there aren't some classes, feats, and skills that don't need a little help from time to time to make them work within the confines of a campaign. I have a few rule variants I designed to balance the game in my campaigns. You can see them for yourself in my DM Registry. But these are light touches... really closer to House Rules rather than Homebrews.

What I really want to understand is:
Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?

[Caelestion]

Why not? There's a famous story about the Sikh leader, Guru Nanak, who came to a village and was met by a boy carrying a full bowl of milk, a sign from the village elders that there was no room for him. He is then said to have plucked a flower and laid it atop the milk without spilling a drop, thereby indicating that one can still bring something special to a crowded place.

[Cosi]

3e has a lot of stuff. But when you cut that stuff down to the kinds of relative power ranges conducive to good games, there tend to be holes. The Fighter and the Wizard simply don't work in the same games unless there's some kind of out-of-game compensation going on. So once you cut out the classes that are too powerful or too weak for whatever power band you want to play in, you're left with a bunch of concepts that aren't workable. There's not really a reasonable way to play a Necromancer in a game balanced around the Barbarian and the Ranger, or a Barbarian in a game balanced around the Beguiler and the Wizard.

[BowStreetRunner]

Creative people generally like to ... well ... create! :smallsmile:

Every single person with whom I have ever played a role-playing game - whether a tabletop game, live action, or online game - has come to the game with their own expectations of what they would like the experience to be. And while some just roll with whatever comes along and try to find something in it to enjoy, most tend to want to put their own spin on things. That might just mean playing a certain character in a unique way, or it could go so far as wanting to come up with a homebrew solution that allows them to represent the idea they have.

[inexorabletruth]

3e has a lot of stuff. But when you cut that stuff down to the kinds of relative power ranges conducive to good games, there tend to be holes. The Fighter and the Wizard simply don't work in the same games unless there's some kind of out-of-game compensation going on. So once you cut out the classes that are too powerful or too weak for whatever power band you want to play in, you're left with a bunch of concepts that aren't workable. There's not really a reasonable way to play a Necromancer in a game balanced around the Barbarian and the Ranger, or a Barbarian in a game balanced around the Beguiler and the Wizard.

I may have to beg to differ on this point. I'm currently running a campaign with:

A Wizard
A Ranger
A Fighter/Artificer/Barbarian
A Truenamer


And they're all representing their roles well. It's one of the most successful games I've run, and I'm doing the whole thing by RAW (including multi-class penalties) except for the House Rules listed in my Registry. I'm not trying to say there can't be a power imbalance between the tiers, but it's a bit severe to claim they simply can't work together. They can, and the game can be fun for all regardless of tier.

I don't think I can make the same claim for epic levels, because I've never run an epic game, but for low to mid level games, I've never seen a problem.

@BowStreetRunner

That might just mean playing a certain character in a unique way, or it could go so far as wanting to come up with a homebrew solution that allows them to represent the idea they have.

So, the homebrew is meant to cut a more direct line to what the player has imagined, than using official materials to crunch it out? I suppose I could understand that. But doesn't that open the door for Pun Pun shenanigans?

[Telonius]

Sometimes I like to make a monster that takes my players completely by surprise.

Sometimes I see a class, strategy, or method of attack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?89314-3-5-Poison-Feats-and-PrC) that just doesn't have all that much support in the rules.

Sometimes I notice there's something that just doesn't work (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5) the way the developers intended, and decide to fix it.

The rules are expansive, and you can emulate an awful lot of stuff with them. But as expansive as they are, they can't cover every possible eventuality.

[RoboEmperor]

I agree with the OP.

You can do virtually everything within the rules of the game, so do it within the rules of the game instead of homebrewing.

Almost every homebrew DM I've ever come across were
1. Too lazy to read the rules so whatever incorrect thing he does he says it's homebrew.
2. Warped the game to his own fetish world.
3. Scrubs crying like a baby about how everything is broken and how his homebrew fixes everything.

DMs making a trumpet that summons a trumpet archon that creates a perpetual time stop for the archon and the player who summoned the trumpet to talk could be fine, except the DMs that tend to do this go "**** the rules, they're just guidelines, I do whatever the **** I want." so... no. Even DMs should adhere to the rules.

Player-side...
1. Noobie who wanted to do whatever the **** he wanted. He wanted a custom item that shrunk in size and said reduce person spell should be used to calculate cost. I said no, you'd use shrink item, and after a lot of crying and hissy fit, Iunno, the DM gave him what he wanted. I mean, this is a game, if you're gonna throw every rule out the window then why are you bothering to play? Every opportunity there was this noob would get the DM to homebrew. You can eat your own summoned creatures if you gobble them down before the duration is up, forget digestion.

The only homebrew DMs that I enjoyed playing with homebrewed their settings only. SETTING. NOT RULES.

I had a DM who homebrewed that returning Harpoons deal their full damage when they return as well, essentially doubling this NPC's damage output. The ****.

[ericgrau]

What I really want to understand is:
Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?

Classes, variants, PrCs, complex races, no way. Homebrew sucks for exactly the reasons you give. Even the best and most flavorful rarely even bear a loose resemblance to balance, and often they make no sense at all.

Spells, feats and items OTOH, heck ya. There are lots of fun custom things you can and should make up. And it's not hard to balance. You can err on the low power side to be safe and it can still be useful (albeit less often). Or even if it's a little overpowered it's just 1 ability. If it is too strong it can be left alone without too much consequence or if it's really bad then it's easy to revise without completely ripping apart the poor player's build. You can have a ton of fun with this. Most or all of the spells with a caster's name in them were made up by one of Gygax's players. In this case I think it's a waste of time to scour through 30 books to find the ability you want. Just make it up, check/adjust its power real quick if needed, and move on.



Stupid DM fiat.

I'm really sorry you had DMs do such horrible things to fiat whatever broken things they wanted for the NPCs. The DM should at least attempt to keep homebrew inline with existing abilities and items. Fiat doesn't end with homebrew though, and I have a feeling those DMs did some other screwed up things in the plot too.

[BowStreetRunner]

So, the homebrew is meant to cut a more direct line to what the player has imagined, than using official materials to crunch it out? I suppose I could understand that. But doesn't that open the door for Pun Pun shenanigans?Perhaps.

But if you look through this forum at the number of posts that go something like "Help me build X in 3.5" where X is their favorite character from some movie or such, you can kind of see how often the existing materials just didn't anticipate every one of the infinite possibilities out there. Not every one of these build ideas has a very successful outcome.

At other times the homebrew is just a matter of filling in the gaps. I like Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum with their mechanics. But while the core classes all have lots of supporting materials out there there isn't so much for things like these. So if you want to do as much with a martial adept as you could with a Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, or Cleric then you may need to make your own prestige classes and such.

And sometimes it's just a matter of not liking the way that the designers did things in 3.5. Some people go back and look at "Gandalf was only a 5th level Magic User (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?7338-Gandalf-was-only-a-Fifth-Level-Magic-User!)" and come up with ideas like Epic 6 (https://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6) rules. Or they might prefer a system that supports injuries and wounds better than this one. So they make up house rules.

Just remember, at one time or another every single supplement that is now part of the 3.5 rule-set...wasn't. If I proposed anything from one of those books before it was published, it would have been considered homebrew. Granted, some homebrew is arguably better implemented than others. But there really is no right or wrong way to enjoy the game - as long as you are actually enjoying it.

Next question: why do people make their own YouTube videos when there are so many networks out there making perfectly good content already?

[Zanos]

I take a pretty negative stance towards homebrew because ninety percent of the time what my players ask to use is trash. Banning D&DWiki homebrew goes a long way, at least.

That said D&D 3.5 is a very "finicky" system for the lack of a better word, if you're trying to build out a specific concept at a specific power level there's probably a way to do it, but it also probably involves 3-6 classes, 4-10 feats, a handful of spells, and a loose smattering of magic items. When you have so many moving parts interacting to make one concept work, it can often be easier for the player and the DM to just homebrew some stuff they think is fair and use it.

[Hecuba]

Because, for many, homebrew is an enjoyable and time honored part of the D&D experience.
Because the same mechanical variety that makes 3.5 interesting for CharOp makes for interesting and modular homebrew. If you can make as interesting level 15 character with a bunch of dips, you can probably make it into an equally-balanced 10 level PRC by assuming entry at 5 and smoothing out the progression.
Because homebrew can be an interesting and effective way to accent a setting. Giving a particularly plot-important order of paladins a variant class feature helps make them memorable, for example.
Because, in my experience, poorly balanced homebrew is not more frequent (in a proportional sense) than poorly balanced CharOp builds - and for homebrew I can generally insist on prior review before games and provide constructive criticism with less fuss

[inexorabletruth]

Because, for many, homebrew is an enjoyable and time honored part of the D&D experience.
Because the same mechanical variety that makes 3.5 interesting for CharOp makes for interesting and modular homebrew. If you can make as interesting level 15 character with a bunch of dips, you can probably make it into an equally-balanced 10 level PRC by assuming entry at 5 and smoothing out the progression.
Because homebrew can be an interesting and effective way to accent a setting. Giving a particularly plot-important order of paladins a variant class feature helps make them memorable, for example.
Because, in my experience, poorly balanced homebrew is not more frequent (in a proportional sense) than poorly balanced CharOp builds - and for homebrew I can generally insist on prior review before games and provide constructive criticism with less fuss


I can't argue with the time-honored part of the D&D experience. But the problem, specifically, is with 3E/3.5. By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.

I've put this through the test. The minds on the Playground are extraordinary at crunch by RAW. I've requested builds for BBEGs, mentor NPCs, and "just because it would be cool" builds here before and I've never stumped the group. From Kankuro of the Naruto series, to Finn the Human, to Rockem Sockem Robots, to the X-Men. I've never been let down, which leads me to believe that with a very high probability of success and enough available levels, one can create just about anything in 3.5. Which leads me to believe that homebrews can't actually enhance the flavor of a setting. My only observation heretofore is that it is either a redundant act, or a way to circumvent the level/feat taxes needed to acquire a certain build type.

In 4E, the exact opposite is true. I've read through some 4E Homebrews and could be convinced to play them and even allow them in my campaigns. But that is because 4E is, by design, vanilla. The doors are left wide open for homebrew to customize the gameplay experience. If 4E was a geographic location, it would be a quiet suburb trying to get the funding for a tourist attraction so it can grow. 3.5 is a bustling overcrowded metropolis with skyscrapers rubbing against each other and crowded sidewalks bleeding into the street. There's no room for growth.

[Falontani]

There are some things that homebrew is okay with, some things that homebrew isn't okay with, and some things that are fuzzy. Base classes, races, and feats are usually not okay.

If there is a base class that isn't doing what you want it to then your either not looking hard enough, you haven't looked at prestige classes that will allow you to do that thing, or your not being clever enough to work with the material at hand. Fluff can be handwaived and changed as long as it doesn't mess with the crunch, and with that you can change so many things to do what you want it to do.

Races already have so many options with monstrous races and regular races out there. If you want to be a special snowflake apply some templates, or again, fluff it out to what you want. I dont see any race that depicts the stereotypical black person (I am not trying to be racist and if someone thinks I am please let me know and I'll delete the post) but that doesn't mean I need a subrace to fit this stereotype, I can play as one with Human. Same goes with any other variant of humans that we already have. If you want to do something interesting in game the one homebrew rule that I allow at my tables with races is the book: Crossbreeding Flesh and Blood by Jonathan Richards, its a 3rd party 3.0 book that has a fairly balanced (in terms of 3.5) way to create creatures from scratch in the world

Feats. Oh feats. There is already a huge amount of them. Usually if you can't find a feat your looking for then your either asking too much of a feat (I know I have) or its something better tasked as a class feature (it probably exists as one somewhere) or the fluff of the feat isn't what you like. I am positive that you can find one feat that should exist that doesn't, and I will say that this one, of the three should be something that a DM can make, but only if he talks with the group about it first and makes it known.

Spells, items, and settings are always okay. As long as you follow the rules that are existing for the spells and items then you should be fine (yes there are some things that really aren't fine, and thats up to the DM to say is too powerful). Settings really are up to DM fiat, even if your using a published one it is hard not to homebrew a little, but doing that is fine.

Templates and prestige classes are fuzzy. I would think that there is hardly ever a reason to homebrew a prestige class, but there have been a few prestige classes that I have looked at and thought to myself, "That doesn't accomplish the goal of this class at all," or, "This is vastly less powerful than it should be, even though the lore behind it is great." Examples that I've seen are Renegade Mastermaker, Thrall of Juiblex, and most recently Fatemaker. There are definitely more of them out there but they certainly could use a boost or just a rewrite.

Finally; Rules. There are times when the rules aren't clear on something, dont go into something, or make no sense. I wont go into details at all, but without the 3rd party Book of Erotic Fantasy* or Bastards and Bloodlines a lot of the more.. mature content would suffer. These two books do not come up a lot, and indeed can usually be handwaived or faded to black, but a drunken night involving the Book of Erotic Fantasy* can definitely bring players out of their shells, and used sparingly can indeed enhance the game. Just be fair when you make a ruling, accept rule 0, and stick to the rules until you can find a clarification.

*Please do not look for this book or use this book in games with players under 18 regardless of how mature they are.

[Jiece18]

Never been a fan of Homebrew classes/feats/spells since the balance is usually off. The shear amount of content in 3.5 makes it easy to create almost anything you want.

Homebrew is better a tool for a DM to improve his game and players experience. Custom created campaigns allow better freedom of creative control for both sides.

For some prestige classes, you could reduce the feat or rank tax needed to enter them. Encourages players to try out some of the less optimized classes.

Magic Items can be really fun to make. For one game, I gave druid a sword that would mold itself to one of her natural attacks when she took on a wild shape and apply its bonus to that one natural attack. Every time she turned into a bear, she gave an enemy a +2 Icy Burst uppercut.

3.5 is rough around the edges, Homebrew when used well, can smooth those edges a bit.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As impressively extensive as the material in 3.5 is, it is not exhaustive of all the concepts players and DMs can come up with or come across in fiction. Sometimes homebrew is the only answer.

I'm very much in the "not before then" camp but it's a thing that must be acknowledged.

[TheIronGolem]

I've put this through the test. The minds on the Playground are extraordinary at crunch by RAW. I've requested builds for BBEGs, mentor NPCs, and "just because it would be cool" builds here before and I've never stumped the group. From Kankuro of the Naruto series, to Finn the Human, to Rockem Sockem Robots, to the X-Men. I've never been let down, which leads me to believe that with a very high probability of success and enough available levels, one can create just about anything in 3.5.

Take note of the resources you implicitly admit to having here: sufficient levels and access to expert knowledge. Not everyone has those. Most players/GM's don't hang out on forums full of people with doctorates in class-level engineering. And even if they do, the bulk of gameplay tends to take place at low level; having a great build that comes online at level 12 isn't helpful if your campaign isn't likely to make it past level 8. Even if it does, you've still spent most of the game with what amounts to an unfinished character. It's like if you said "Hey, let's watch a Batman movie!" and your friend replied "Okay, but not until Gotham has had its series finale".

If I was running a 3.5 game and a player came to me wanting to play a concept I didn't know how to build in a satisfactory way, I might very well sit down with that player to homebrew a class that fits her needs. Sure, I could carefully comb through every splat I own in search of individual pieces that I can use to stay all nice and official (possibly being held up by the need to acquire books I don't already have), but chances are writing something myself will actually be less work. And I could also light up the Playground Signal asking for help, but my player is twiddling her thumbs while I'm waiting for advice that may or may not ever arrive.



By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.

...

Which leads me to believe that homebrews can't actually enhance the flavor of a setting. My only observation heretofore is that it is either a redundant act, or a way to circumvent the level/feat taxes needed to acquire a certain build type.


You're assuming that those level/feat taxes are a good thing. When they're blocking a functional character concept (as opposed to raw power or potentially game-changing abilities), they're just an obstacle, and circumventing them is not bad.

[Zancloufer]

One big thing about having so much splat is not only having access to it, but even knowing some of it exists. There is a ridiculous amount of book diving that your have to do to make some concepts and in my experience many D&D players DON'T want to make a ridiculously splat filled series of class dips.

There is also the issue of the base game being, broken. There are feats skills and even mundane classes that can probably should be tweaked as they just don't work as is. Most of the Homebrew I allow is pretty much fixes of existing content. Also Tome of Radiance because NOTHING in 3.5 plays quite like it does in anyway shape or form. Well without actually breaking the game that is.

No really there is some CRAZY good Homebrew out there that matches some of the best stuff WoTC has made.

[AmberVael]

Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?

Because we're still a few rulebooks away from completely modeling the universe with it.

[Steve Edwards]

My dm didn't so much make a home brew 35 campaign as just make changes to make things more balanced between classes, race and so on

[Celestia]

It's because while 3.5 has a lot of stuff, it doesn't have everything. There are, perhaps, millions or even billions of different ways to build characters, but that is still a finite number. Most ideas can be realized within the system, but what if someone has an idea that can't? That's where homebrew comes in. It's there to help bolster what makes 3.5 remain popular even after all these years: it adds more options.

[Zanos]

Finally; Rules. There are times when the rules aren't clear on something, dont go into something, or make no sense. I wont go into details at all, but without the 3rd party Book of Erotic Fantasy* or Bastards and Bloodlines a lot of the more.. mature content would suffer. These two books do not come up a lot, and indeed can usually be handwaived or faded to black, but a drunken night involving the Book of Erotic Fantasy* can definitely bring players out of their shells, and used sparingly can indeed enhance the game. Just be fair when you make a ruling, accept rule 0, and stick to the rules until you can find a clarification.
I'll take "Things I Didn't Need Rules For" for two thousand, Alex.

[Quertus]

Why homebrew? Hmmm... so many answers...

First off, that's who I am, that's what I do. I enjoy playing Battletech, but... I wouldn't enjoy it near as much if I couldn't build custom mechs. I enjoy playing Magic the Gathering, but... I wouldn't enjoy it near as much if I couldn't build custom decks. I enjoy playing RPGs, but... You get the idea. The more agency I have to customize things, the more I'll likely enjoy the game.

Then there's the characters to consider. Some, like my signature character Quertus, for whom this account is named, have an "app for that" mentality, and produce new custom spells / items for any new concepts that they encounter.

I'd love to play with a GM who could invent new feats or prestige classes on the fly to represent the cool mundane training a muggle character receives. That would make them feel cool and special.

On the flip side, I've written up a bunch of prestige classes based on several of my characters' experiences, including "Abductee Spellcaster" and "Intuitive Looter". Each had their own special gimmick, a unique ability, often with a unique mechanic, to make the character truly distinctive.

Speaking of distinctive, I've seen plenty of characters who wanted a familiar or animal companion that wasn't listed, and had to be homebrew.

As much as 3e has, there's some things I've never found / never had anyone who could tell me how to do via RAW. A character who animates the dead, starting at first level, with no tacked on cruft, like religion, or ability to cast spells / do anything else but animate the dead. Or a Psychpomp, who had abilities to manipulate one's final destination in the afterlife (which is another custom Prestige Class I wrote).

Personally, I mildly dislike splat diving. But I really hate having to describe my character as a Fighter 2 / Lion Totem Barbarian 1 / Daughter of the Three Moons 2 / Ascended Scribe 1 / Hidden Dragon 2 / Aspect of Verbosity 2. I'd much rather just have one custom class, and be a level 10 Whirling Flurry Master.

And some campaign worlds have new homebrew abilities on top of the standard character abilities.

Why else? Hmmm... IIRC, the DMG encourages DMs to create custom Prestige Classes to add flavor and character to their world. Speaking of,


Almost every homebrew DM I've ever come across were
2. Warped the game to his own fetish world.


Why is this a bad thing?

[Zanos]

I'd really rather not play a game where the DM is trying to get my character to get domed by some drow every other session. And yes, that's happened to me. The situation was eventually resolved when we killed most of the drow in the setting.

[PersonMan]

I don't really do it anymore, but when I did it was mostly for the fun of it. It's nice to make something like that, see it come together and work.

Plus, there are some things that just aren't covered well - there's no first-party Binder/Incarnate theurge, for example.


Why is this a bad thing?

I think it's generally not done with the level of communication and consent required to make it work, which causes issues.

[Luccan]

In my case, I did it because there were options not present in a particular variant rule. I'm not saying I did the best job, but I felt rounding out the Generic Classes with a Psionic Generic and either a Monk-like variant or ACF allowed a broader range of characters (which was the point of Generics anyway). I'd probably have done one for the majority of sub-systems if I knew them better. So that's one reason: Filling in a hole left by the game which didn't need to be a hole to begin with.

As for more standard homebrew classes: yeah, you can build basically any concept. Eventually. Assuming you know where to look. And it might not come on for 10 levels, even if it isn't all that great. Honestly, I just see homebrew as expanded houserules. Everyone has them, some are better than others. And yours might not work at every table.

[Scots Dragon]

You homebrew in D&D 3.5E for the same reason you homebrew in any other role-playing game. You do it because you had a concept, or variant of a concept, that wasn't well fulfilled by the existing rules or could otherwise have used more expansion. For instance creating a specific prestige class and a couple of feats to represent the unique talents possessed by an elite organisation of warriors, a new artefact to better serve as the MacGuffin for a given campaign, or a spellbook full of new homebrew spells that were personally developed by a mysterious and secretive archmage.

Or indeed, you saw something cool in a book or a film or a comic and wanted to translate that into the game, and there was no existing support for said concept elsewhere.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

Unless you count the race builder in pathfinder homebrew, I completely agree that homebrew is an unnecessary thing. With so many different ways to use every single class, and even more with every race. I have found it is possible to make almost any character you set your mind to without homebrew (Except saiyans and Superman)

[Heliomance]

Off the top of my head, one thing that D&D does very poorly (I think PF might have some stuff for it now) is what you might call "flexible extreme specialists". By that I mean people like Poison Ivy, like benders from Avatar, like your classic mythological shapeshifters. Basically, characters that have one narrow field of expertise (fire, plants, magnetism, whatever) that they are totally limited to, but within that field they can be very freeform. You can't model Elsa as a sorcerer that only has [Cold] spells, not very well. You can't have a Shape Shifter Showdown (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShapeShifterShowdown) with a Wildshaping Druid. Good luck playing Magneto, or Katara. The system as it is just doesn't support it. Homebrew can.

[martixy]

But 3.5 is sooooooo built out. You could play the game for a lifetime and never exploit allll the rules, all the classes, all the variants, all the PrCs.

But not built out ENOUGH. I don't wanna exploit every rule in existence, I wanna play this very specific wonky character/campaign for which there are probably rules to do, but maybe not.
The creativity of the greater population of players is significantly broader than anything a dozen or so game designers could ever come up with.

[Pleh]

I find it interesting that so many here cite "balance" in one way or another

As if 3.5 was ever a game we played for its exceptional balance.

[Knaight]

But not built out ENOUGH. I don't wanna exploit every rule in existence, I wanna play this very specific wonky character/campaign for which there are probably rules to do, but maybe not.
This. If your goal is to explore a defined space, 3.5 has you covered indefinitely. If you're looking to do something specific and use it as a tool to that end it routinely comes up across stuff that can't be done without homebrew, or even material that the system is fundamentally unsuited for.


I find it interesting that so many here cite "balance" in one way or another

As if 3.5 was ever a game we played for its exceptional balance.
Then there's this. Is homebrew often unbalanced? Sure. Is that any different than first party material? Nope.

[Florian]

In some cases, just for "smooth sailing". Some builds can be ugly, some ways to fulfill the prereqs of a PrC even more so. Take Mystic Theurge as an example. Early entry shenanigans aside, that's one of the PrC that you could home-brew to a full 20 level class and hand a player to satisfy the "urge to theurge" right from level one, without much breaking the game (and no, no further PrC on this).

[Random Sanity]

I can't argue with the time-honored part of the D&D experience. But the problem, specifically, is with 3E/3.5. By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.

.

>3E/3.5
>Balanced

Pick only one.

Seriously, when you have as much variance in character power as "guy who can rewrite reality with a hand-wave vs guy who hits things with a stick" BEFORE you get into splatbooks, and the splatbooks only widen the gap, talking about the game being balanced is an insult to the concept of balance.

D&D has a lot of things going for it, but "balance" has never been on the list. Least of all in 3rd Ed.

[Nifft]

3.5e can appear roughly balanced if you've got skillful players who want it to appear balanced, or if you've got a skillful DM who is willing to put in the effort to houserule & homebrew.

So yeah, homebrew can be a tool to improve the inherently poor balance of D&D 3.5e.

That's part of why I've done a lot of homebrewing: to improve cool concepts that need some mechanical help.

Another part is fun: engaging in creative design is fun.

[Darth Ultron]

B]
Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?[/B]

Simple: The above statement is Not True.

D&D 3.5E does have a ton of books and stuff, but it is hardly all that ''expansive''. Even a glance at the ''pile of stuff'' shows tons and tons of holes and glaring emissions. It's not like ''they'' ever could think of ''everything''.

Like 3X has one book that is 1/3 about elves...and that is it, nothing EVER needs to be published about elves again? Rubbish.

And, oh, about half of the stuff in the books is downright awful. They make a ''demon summoner'' whatever, and give it abilities like ''+2 to intimidate'' and ''can speak Abyssal''. Wow...so exciting to play such a dull class. Granted this is true of about half the Core stuff too.

And then ''all that stuff'' does not cover everything.

[inexorabletruth]

>3E/3.5
>Balanced

Pick only one.

Seriously, when you have as much variance in character power as "guy who can rewrite reality with a hand-wave vs guy who hits things with a stick" BEFORE you get into splatbooks, and the splatbooks only widen the gap, talking about the game being balanced is an insult to the concept of balance.

D&D has a lot of things going for it, but "balance" has never been on the list. Least of all in 3rd Ed.

Lol! Ok. You're not wrong. But what I said was "attempt" at balance. My experience is that Tier 6 can coexists in a party with Tier 1 and play a sustainable and vital role within the party if you play by RAW. As I've mentioned before, literally all my games are played by RAW, and I've never seen a need for Homebrew to fix the party balance in order to give everyone a playable role in the game.

[JyP]

Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?
For an example : there are prestige classes for PCs to better work with their mounts, up to Halfling Outriders, but there's not a prestige class for goblinoids to be Wolf or Worg Riders. Hence a custom Worg Rider Prestige Class, mixing mechanisms from these other prestige classes.

[Nifft]

Lol! Ok. You're not wrong. But what I said was "attempt" at balance. My experience is that Tier 6 can coexists in a party with Tier 1 and play a sustainable and vital role within the party if you play by RAW. As I've mentioned before, literally all my games are played by RAW, and I've never seen a need for Homebrew to fix the party balance in order to give everyone a playable role in the game.

It kinda sounds like you're shifting the goalposts.

I can tell you how homebrew has helped my games, and I can talk about my own experience with the failure of D&D to provide well-balanced options.

But now you're talking about your own lack of experience as if that lack is somehow a counter-argument. Nobody can breach that particular wall except you, so you've got an iron-clad defense against being influenced by this discussion.

If that's the case, what kind of discussion could possibly be fruitful?


Creativity is fun.

Improving the game is fun.

Playing a more balanced game is fun.

You should have a number of answers to "why homebrew" by now.

[Hecuba]

I take a pretty negative stance towards homebrew because ninety percent of the time what my players ask to use is trash. Banning D&DWiki homebrew goes a long way, at least.

Homebrew should always be reviewed and - despite a few diamonds in the rough - most of the stuff on D&DWiki should probably not pass review. This forum, in contrast, has generally turned out a higher quality product.


I can't argue with the time-honored part of the D&D experience. But the problem, specifically, is with 3E/3.5. By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.

I've put this through the test. The minds on the Playground are extraordinary at crunch by RAW. I've requested builds for BBEGs, mentor NPCs, and "just because it would be cool" builds here before and I've never stumped the group. From Kankuro of the Naruto series, to Finn the Human, to Rockem Sockem Robots, to the X-Men. I've never been let down, which leads me to believe that with a very high probability of success and enough available levels, one can create just about anything in 3.5. Which leads me to believe that homebrews can't actually enhance the flavor of a setting. My only observation heretofore is that it is either a redundant act, or a way to circumvent the level/feat taxes needed to acquire a certain build type.

In 4E, the exact opposite is true. I've read through some 4E Homebrews and could be convinced to play them and even allow them in my campaigns. But that is because 4E is, by design, vanilla. The doors are left wide open for homebrew to customize the gameplay experience. If 4E was a geographic location, it would be a quiet suburb trying to get the funding for a tourist attraction so it can grow. 3.5 is a bustling overcrowded metropolis with skyscrapers rubbing against each other and crowded sidewalks bleeding into the street. There's no room for growth.

Game balance in 3.5 is certainly complex, and I would also call it intricate. I would not, however, consider it to be delicate. Indeed, I find it quite robust - a tier 1-tier 4 spread for a table is workable if you put some attention into it, and that is a very big difference in power balance. Indeed, a slight change in balance from dropping feat taxes and similar can often be a good tool to address balance if someone is struggling because the build is not working like expected.

More generally, however, your examples reveal your underlying outlook on homebrew: you consider it, at best, a suspect necessity. Yes, you can probably toggle together the abilities you want from different classes without homebrew. From your perspective, that seams to mark homebrew as unnecessary.

From my perspective, I would take it as a good excuse for some light home brew to flesh out the idea. I like the process, much like I like CharOp. It's not why should I support homebrew in 3.5 - it's why shouldn't I.


An example from a recent table: I had a character who wanted to play a high Tier 3 divine caster with a focus on domains and the idea of being blessed/aided by a specific deity. For a simple CharOp build, this is relatively straight forward - divine bard moving into Sovereign Speaker, being selective with spells known, & refluffing bardic music as divine aid.

Once you've recognized that, however, it can be translated into a new class with relatively little effort. Start with the Bard Chassis. Move from the spells
known mechanic to a Domains only mechanic. Start with 2 domains at 1. Create the idea of "secondary" domains gained at 5, 10, & 15 - works like the normal ones, but you can't cast the from those domains for your highest level spells-per-day. At 20, add a final domain and make all domains full domains (I like powerful capstones at 20 - you could just give a 3rd full domain instead if you don't).

Since you have no 0th level domain spells, rework the spells per day schedule to start at 1 and grant a new spell level at 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, & 19. This progression - which caps at 7 instead of 6 - paired with the fact that you'll always start a new spell level with at least 2 spells know, should make the spell casting a bit more powerful than a bard even after accounting for the more limited flexability in spell selection.

Rework bardic music as divine blessings and rename them appropriately. Move the bonus types from morale to sacred/profane (depending on deity). Cut bardic knowledge. Cut counter-song. Give the character an aura like a cleric. Depending on the balance point of the game, consider adding in divine grace, potentially at a delay. Bump Inspire Heroics up one level higher/

The net effect is still safely in tier 3. I don't see much in the way of profound balance concerns. And you get to play the idea from level 1, instead of waiting until level 5 when you can enter Sovereign Speaker.

[Vaern]

You can do pretty much anything you want with all what's available, but maybe you don't have access to all of the books. I once homebrewed a prestige class that was meant to give a sorcerer of Pelor a bit of divine flavor, infusing fire spells with divine light that would make it more potent against undead and evil outsiders. I later learned that it was pretty much the same conceptually as a class in one of the Eberron books, which I have never had access to, that did more or less the same thing with sorcerers of the Silver Flame.
Or maybe someone has a specific character concept in mind, and said person isn't as well-versed in the game's mechanics as some of the people here are. Most causal players will likely take one base class and one, maybe two, prestige classes, but I often see builds here that involve 5 or 6 classes, occasionally with the levels broken up in awkward ways to optimize the spell progression. Some people may simply find it easier to make their own class than to determine what cocktail of existing classes it might take to achieve their desired character.

[ericgrau]

I find it interesting that so many here cite "balance" in one way or another

As if 3.5 was ever a game we played for its exceptional balance.
There are degrees of balance and imbalance. Large scale homebrew is in its own league of suck. Small scale is easier to handle.

[Telonius]

I think that part of the problem is that, however poorly balanced it is, the published sources usually made an attempt to be balanced. They have things like editors, even if they miss things (and sometimes very big things). Yeah, PHB is the least balanced book, etc. But there's a difference between not realizing how powerful a Druid was going to be just out of the can, and deliberately making something like a Lightning Warrior. With homebrew, there's no limit to absurdity, because there's no limit to how badly people are going to misunderstand (or deliberately sabotage) the game.

Well-crafted homebrew can be superior to published content, but it takes time and system mastery to know what's well-crafted.

[Elrak]

....
Or maybe someone has a specific character concept in mind, and said person isn't as well-versed in the game's mechanics as some of the people here are. ...

This is a good point, I myself do not use homebrew for my own characters but I have created a couple of them either a) in order to provide an easy to understand chassis for one of my gaming friends who have a good concept but are not as well versed in the system and do not want/enjoy going through thousands of pages of material to make that concept a reality or b) just out of pure joy of putting down the concept for a class I was playing with.

[Pleh]

Lol! Ok. You're not wrong. But what I said was "attempt" at balance. My experience is that Tier 6 can coexists in a party with Tier 1 and play a sustainable and vital role within the party if you play by RAW. As I've mentioned before, literally all my games are played by RAW, and I've never seen a need for Homebrew to fix the party balance in order to give everyone a playable role in the game.

RAW is not some magic solution that fixes 3e's balance issues.

Most of the Theoretical Optimization builds posted on forums like these never break RAW (maybe bend it, and maybe they break the crap outta RAI, but never breaking RAW, that's like the only rule they can't break).

I mean, no 20th level Fighter can ever really play the same game at the table with a 20th level Gate Chaining DMM Cleric.

RAW is more often than not exactly the reason 3.5 ISN'T balanced. That's why we often supplement it with a healthy dose of RAI to tone down some of the wilder interpretations of its wording.

[Dragovon]

Technically I play Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 (or 3.0). That said, by definition I've got so many houserules my game is effectively homebrewed. Why? Because despite making the change to PF (because I really like most of the rules changes), there are some things back from 3.0 and from 3.5 that I still like better...so I use them instead. At the same time, I allow most 3rd party content from all 3 editions of the game. Why? Because 1) I like to let the players play what they like. They find an old 3.0 PrC that they want to try out. Sure...go for it. They want a PF 3rd party hybrid class. Sure...go for it. The relevance to homebrew is the fact that because I allow most things, I have to come up with rules that weren't written for how some of these things interact (and to change things that prove to be completely broken). If one of my players were to write up a class they thought was cool and that they wanted to play (or a race...whatever), I don't have a problem with it. I may have some adjustments to reduce the level of brokenness. I don't even have a problem fitting it in my world (which is really a multiverse where lots of published worlds as well as multiple of my own worlds exist...and people sometimes travel between them).

The bottom line is that we all play the game to have fun. I have fun telling a story and putting challenges in front of my players. Different players have fun from different things. A couple players are always wanting to experiment with new classes, one player is interested in the roleplaying and the nuances of the world. Other players try to power game. They often aren't balanced compared to each other. They don't need to be. They accept that some things are just inherently more powerful than others. That's just the way it is. I support their desire to pursue what they find fun. This ends up in homebrew...but ultimately it's just about having fun.

[inexorabletruth]

The net effect is still safely in tier 3. I don't see much in the way of profound balance concerns. And you get to play the idea from level 1, instead of waiting until level 5 when you can enter Sovereign Speaker.

I suppose I can partially agree with that sentiment. But I feel like maybe your crunch knowledge is pretty next level, which can shield you from the more common negative side-effects of using homebrew to fast forward to the character the player ultimately wishes to play. The most common reason I have for why you should wait until level X to unlock Y ability, or just to start the campaign at level X in the first place is because from what I've experienced, that is the most consistent way to protect party balance.

I'm lacking a better phrase here. If anyone has the right word for what I'm saying, please feel free to correct me. I'm trying to say that everyone in the party can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR or ECL. The CoDzilla doesn't run the board while the monk and fighter hang back and wait for the coast to be clear. Everyone can get involved; everyone can play a role; everyone can have fun with their character.

When you give a level 1 character access to level 5 capabilities, you open the door to whole new possibilities for substitution levels, alt-classes, templates, negative level adjustments, and a variety of cheese buried deep in the splatbooks that can throw a party way off balance. This is fine, if that's what the group really wants to do, but more often than not, I've seen it create one special snowflake and 3 or 4 bored PCs, which culminates in another silly arms race against the DM.


I joined a low-op, low-tier campaign (it's what I generally prefer to play) level 2. I built an Aristocrat/Paladin of Tyranny (Mounted Combat build) and the DM granted me some extra masterwork gear due to my backstory (being the son of a tyrannical noble). Basically, everyone got something nice that was pertinent to their backstory because the DM had approved a homebrew feat that a player had suggested. This was years ago, so I don't remember the feat, but I tried to warn the DM about the potential dangers of it, because of what it gave the character access to.

He ended up building, somehow, a Lloth-touched, flesh-made, multi-headed, extra-armed, medium sized, half-ogre with full weapon proficiency... at level 2. The guy had a +17 to hit. His charisma was so off the charts that he just intimidated us into doing whatever he wanted, and the rest of the party just served as his cohorts, carrying his loot, and running interference or performing chores like "ride ahead and tell X noble we are arriving and will be requiring rooms in his palace." I tried to stick it out, but the game was excruciating. I bailed when we hit level three and the template-monster started talking about his new bonus feat options.

I'm pretty sure that's the worst case I can think of, but it still makes the point. The higher up you get in levels, the more options you have to build whatever. That's just good RPG sense. Cutting through the feat/skill/level taxes early on in order to play something below level 5 (this is especially true at Level 1) that would make more since in a level 10+ campaign is asking for trouble.

And before anyone jumps in with notions of build altruism, I want you to know that I realize not all players are closeted munchkins just waiting to annihilate party balance. In fact, I believe that game-breaker munchkins are the exception to the norm. I'm just saying it tears a rift where there doesn't need to be one. And that rift allows room for cheese, which creates a headache for the DM, and often throws party balance in the garbage.

[inexorabletruth]

RAW is not some magic solution that fixes 3e's balance issues.

Most of the Theoretical Optimization builds posted on forums like these never break RAW (maybe bend it, and maybe they break the crap outta RAI, but never breaking RAW, that's like the only rule they can't break).

I mean, no 20th level Fighter can ever really play the same game at the table with a 20th level Gate Chaining DMM Cleric.

RAW is more often than not exactly the reason 3.5 ISN'T balanced. That's why we often supplement it with a healthy dose of RAI to tone down some of the wilder interpretations of its wording.

You make a great point... at high levels. Once things get epic, it's a whole new mess. And I can concede a need for homebrew at level 20+.

[inexorabletruth]

Technically I play Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 (or 3.0). That said, by definition I've got so many houserules my game is effectively homebrewed. Why? Because despite making the change to PF (because I really like most of the rules changes), there are some things back from 3.0 and from 3.5 that I still like better...so I use them instead. At the same time, I allow most 3rd party content from all 3 editions of the game. Why? Because 1) I like to let the players play what they like. They find an old 3.0 PrC that they want to try out. Sure...go for it. They want a PF 3rd party hybrid class. Sure...go for it.

The relevance to homebrew is the fact that because I allow most things, I have to come up with rules that weren't written for how some of these things interact (and to change things that prove to be completely broken).

And that doesn't spiral out of control for you? As I read what you wrote, all I see is "vicious cycle". Add more homebrews so you can balance it with more homebrews, which cancels out another rule, so you need another homebrew and a new homebrew to balance that homebrew...

Of course, bleeding between 3E and 3.5 can be fun. I use the Arms and Equipment guide in 3E for every campaign. I also like to throw in some monsters from 3E once in a while to shake things up and throw off meta-knowledge. But 3E and 3.5 are functionally similar enough to integrate smoothly. I can even dig from 3E Dragon Magazine, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron without a hiccup. But I've seen some seriously over-powered builds come from mixing Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 though. And you're right. The most efficient way to counteract that is with homebrew and house rules. Which kind of feels like creating the beast only to kill it. Then the vicious cycle begins.

[Hecuba]

I suppose I can partially agree with that sentiment. But I feel like maybe your crunch knowledge is pretty next level, which can shield you from the more common negative side-effects of using homebrew to fast forward to the character the player ultimately wishes to play.

I can agree without reservation that acceptable homebrew (much less good homebrew) requires significant system mastery. Indeed, I would say it requires greater system mastery that much of the bulk of direct applications of CharOp - because it is less likely there will be a ready-to-use internet optimization guide that you can apply (though I would peg the peak for applying CharOp as higher).

Keep in mind, however, that you'll generally also have the option to review and critique homebrew before it hits the table. That means that, if you have someone at the table who does have that kind of system mastery, it can often be leveraged for homebrew in ways that are uncomfortable for many tables for CharOp (because that seems more like playing the character for them).

[Deadline]

I'm lacking a better phrase here. If anyone has the right word for what I'm saying, please feel free to correct me. I'm trying to say that everyone in the party can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR or ECL. The CoDzilla doesn't run the board while the monk and fighter hang back and wait for the coast to be clear. Everyone can get involved; everyone can play a role; everyone can have fun with their character.

It's important to note that a Fighter can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR, even when the CoDzilla does Fighter better, the Druid's animal companion does Fighter better, and the Wizard is capable of summoning entities who can do Fighter better. The reason that isn't balanced is because if you took the Fighter out of the equation, the encounter is still resolved with no additional trouble. In other words, there is nothing justifying the Fighter's existence in that part. This can work out just fine as long as the player of the Fighter is ok with his one schtick being less effective than the secondary resources of the other party members.

But that isn't balanced. It's just everyone agreeing to have fun and not be bothered by the imbalances. Or everyone agreeing to not step on the toes of each others roles (which is tragically easy to do by accident with Tier 1 classes). This is sometimes referred to as the Gentleman's Agreement (a.k.a. "Don't be a d***").

And balance isn't really a thing in 3.5. Sure, the designers took an initial stab at it, but given that some of the worst offenders to balance are in the PHB, I wouldn't hang my hat on it.

[inexorabletruth]

It's important to note that a Fighter can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR, even when the CoDzilla does Fighter better, the Druid's animal companion does Fighter better, and the Wizard is capable of summoning entities who can do Fighter better. The reason that isn't balanced is because if you took the Fighter out of the equation, the encounter is still resolved with no additional trouble. In other words, there is nothing justifying the Fighter's existence in that part. This can work out just fine as long as the player of the Fighter is ok with his one schtick being less effective than the secondary resources of the other party members.

Meh... I can't really agree to that. Not as gospel truth, anyway.

Taken directly from Tier System for Classes:

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level.

This is especially true at low to mid levels. My wife can build a killer Fighter. She knows the mechanics well, and can use this class to make a mighty contender in any low to mid-level campaign. I'm not so bad with Monks... because I love playing as them. Even though my CharOp skills are modest, I can create a low level Monk that can positively manhandle any other class with an equal ECL regardless of Tier.

Of course, my argument shakes apart once you get to high level to epic level campaigns. Even if it didn't, the fact that your ECL can matter more than your Tier is enough to handle balance in game encounters as a DM. But of course this is spinning off into a different topic.

It would be more on point to say:
Homebrew doesn't exactly fix the issue of imbalance. If nothing else, as I've seen more often to be the case, it exacerbates the issue.

Therefore, how do you see that adding more rules to a rules heavy system simplify the issue of party balance?

[TheIronGolem]

Therefore, how do you see that adding more rules to a rules heavy system simplify the issue of party balance?

Literally every new piece of content published after the PHB added more rules to a rules-heavy system. Yet many of them improved balance by giving players better-balanced options for expressing character concepts (like the Swordsage or the Dread Necromancer).

If your intent is to argue against homebrew, take care to avoid using arguments that apply equally well to non-homebrew.

[Jama7301]

You can do pretty much anything you want with all what's available, but maybe you don't have access to all of the books.

I just want to highlight this. There's a LOT of books for 3/3.5, and I know I can't find a fraction of them at my local game store. I don't feel compelled to drop $20+ on a book that I'm going to use one option out of, when I can use my PHB as a framework for trying to create something.

[inexorabletruth]

I just want to highlight this. There's a LOT of books for 3/3.5, and I know I can't find a fraction of them at my local game store. I don't feel compelled to drop $20+ on a book that I'm going to use one option out of, when I can use my PHB as a framework for trying to create something.

Another good point. I can always relate to money being a problem. I lucked out, and got all my materials from a grognard who was like "Eff this, I'm out!" But even with all those books and magazines, I have to say I rarely use them anymore. I just google whatever race, class, or feat I need now. Didn't WoTC pretty much release everything as OGL in 3.5, like give or take a book or magazine that almost never gets used? I'm looking at you, Magic of Incarnum.

[Quarian Rex]

By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.


Homebrew isn't necessarily something to shortcut progression. Usually it is more of a side-grade than an upgrade. There are some things that core just doesn't do very well, so homebrew fills in the gaps. As an example, I love magic users. The idea of having a character who can warp reality to achieve his goals is fascinating, and a concept rich with RP potential. But I hate vancian spellcasting. That leaves a pretty wide gulf between player desire and mechanical options. Sure, 3.5 eventually tried including some accommodating options late in its lifespan but they usually fell flat (mostly from pre-nerfing due to fear that removal of vancian limitations would create an unstoppable juggernaught, it never did). Homebrew comes to the rescue.

Or maybe a player wants to play a martial that can actually hold his own with the casters at higher levels (by eventually pulling off some truly mythological acts). Core fails at this (and fails hard). Looking at the Terramach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286983-3-5-Base-Class-quot-I-want-to-live-inside-a-castle-built-of-your-agony!-quot) we can see that homebrew does not.

The "ecosystem of the game mechanics" is not so delicate a thing. Does it require a good level of system mastery to seperate the wheat from the chaff? Sure. Any mildly experienced DM should have that level already (else I'd wonder how they are running their game). Homebrew can add a lot to a game, just as all good content can.

[inexorabletruth]

So, so far, the best points I've seen (or rather the points that make the most sense to me) are:

Not everyone can afford all the splats, so homebrew is the next best option.
Homebrew can be used to balance Epic Level campaigns.
Because it's cool, and I want it.

I'm not going to say I'll change my mind about Homebrew in my campaigns, but I feel like I have a better understanding of why others would allow it. Still, I believe at large, the benefits of homebrew don't seem to outweigh the risks of breaking open a system that is already easy enough to break.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic! I hope you enjoyed discussing it with me as well.

[zergling.exe]

Another good point. I can always relate to money being a problem. I lucked out, and got all my materials from a grognard who was like "Eff this, I'm out!" But even with all those books and magazines, I have to say I rarely use them anymore. I just google whatever race, class, or feat I need now. Didn't WoTC pretty much release everything as OGL in 3.5, like give or take a book or magazine that almost never gets used? I'm looking at you, Magic of Incarnum.

No, OGL only applies to the Core 3 (barring some MM monsters or a few specific examples). Unearthed Arcana, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and the Epic Level Handbook. Basically if it's not on this site (http://dndsrd.net/), it's not OGL.

[P.F.]

So, so far, the best points I've seen (or rather the points that make the most sense to me) are:

Not everyone can afford all the splats, so homebrew is the next best option.
Homebrew can be used to balance Epic Level campaigns.
Because it's cool, and I want it.

I'm not going to say I'll change my mind about Homebrew in my campaigns, but I feel like I have a better understanding of why others would allow it. Still, I believe at large, the benefits of homebrew don't seem to outweigh the risks of breaking open a system that is already easy enough to break.


I think you are perhaps overestimating the fragility of the d20 gaming sysyem?

This is a system which can uphold the weighty facade of houserules and interpretive conventions without which it would collapse in nearly every session I've played. And yet, even with all these structural deficiencies, it still stands.

This is a system which has withstood unrelenting pounding with the Banhammer of Munchkinslaying and yet even my most egregious min/maxing übergamer friends keep coming back to the table.

This is a system which flatly and unironically equates the under-performing Monk with the juggernaut Druid. And yet, people still play both monks and druids.

Is slopping a little homebrew on there really going to break this system?

No, fear of breaking the game I don't think is at issue here.

When I hear objections to homebrew, it's more typically fear of being rendered superfluous.

I've discovered a really cool class which looks underwhelming but has an ability which, when combined with a specific feat and another class feature, let's me do something awesome! How disappointing is it, then, when another player just writes "I can do this awesome thing" on his character sheet, and all the other players just think he's so creative and couldn't care less about the rules I've cleverly exploited.

So maybe I won't allow homebrew rules in my campaign. Maybe, as a DM I don't have time to review and edit all my players homebrew proposals, or to talk through their hurt feelings when I shoot them down(and let's be real, 99% of suggestions for homebrew are terrible). My delight in learning a new way to exploit the rules is greater than my displeasure at having an encounter/campaign utterly wrecked by a player who has discovered an unforseen (and apparently rules-legal) combo.

There are plenty of good reasons not to want to get into rules-writing on our own. But let's not pretend that the system underpinning the myriad published sourcebooks is so delicate that adding our own rules will ruin it. This game has been around a bit too long for that.

[Yahzi]

Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?
I agree. In fact, I restricted my campaign to Core only (and banned Monks to boot), because that's already enough complexity for me.

Although I did do some homebrew... about 100,000 words of it. I only really changed two rules though: XP is tangible, and the amount you need doubles at ever level. All the rest of that homebrew is making sense of the world after you make those two changes.

[Jarmen4u]

-snipped-

Dude, you are projecting really hard.

All you're talking about is bad DM house rules. We're talking about homebrew. That is, custom classes, races, feats, etc. Sorry you've got some personal issues to work out, but this is not the place.

[GrayDeath]

I take a pretty negative stance towards homebrew because ninety percent of the time what my players ask to use is trash. Banning D&DWiki homebrew goes a long way, at least.

That said D&D 3.5 is a very "finicky" system for the lack of a better word, if you're trying to build out a specific concept at a specific power level there's probably a way to do it, but it also probably involves 3-6 classes, 4-10 feats, a handful of spells, and a loose smattering of magic items. When you have so many moving parts interacting to make one concept work, it can often be easier for the player and the DM to just homebrew some stuff they think is fair and use it.



Because, for many, homebrew is an enjoyable and time honored part of the D&D experience.
Because the same mechanical variety that makes 3.5 interesting for CharOp makes for interesting and modular homebrew. If you can make as interesting level 15 character with a bunch of dips, you can probably make it into an equally-balanced 10 level PRC by assuming entry at 5 and smoothing out the progression.
Because homebrew can be an interesting and effective way to accent a setting. Giving a particularly plot-important order of paladins a variant class feature helps make them memorable, for example.
Because, in my experience, poorly balanced homebrew is not more frequent (in a proportional sense) than poorly balanced CharOp builds - and for homebrew I can generally insist on prior review before games and provide constructive criticism with less fuss



I find it interesting that so many here cite "balance" in one way or another

As if 3.5 was ever a game we played for its exceptional balance.

QFT.


To reiterate:

For me Homebrew in D&D .x has 3 reasons:

1.: I dont want to jump through the ridiculous amount of hoops (and need to be level 10) to paly a certain concept (most of the time this relates to Martial Characters, as with Spells you can do much more earlier^^). Or, as said above, dont have access to whichever splat it is in "originally:

2.: I ahve a cool Idea and just want to try building it myself. Pure creativity for fun.


3.: Attempt to make a more balanced set of classes.
I mean as long as they are powerwise below the Big 3, Homebrew will at most make some classes even mroeredundant, but not endanger the Game Blaance as a whole. SInce I, and many others, mostly aim Homebrew CLasses at T3 level, a full set of say 7 or 8 different Homebrew Classes +Sorcerer+PunceBarbarian can make uo a very well balanced Party with a niche for everybody and without the But my Wizard/Druid/Cleric will deal with it alone" problem.

Aside from the fact that many existing classes do not really do what they aim to do anyway. ^^

[King of Nowhere]

What I really want to understand is:
Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?

What I really want to understand is this:
Why read through 50+ splatbooks, spend days figuring the class/feat/race combos, only to come up with something mildly similar to your concept, that requires a half dozen classes and doesn't work before level 12, when you can just homebrew something that is exactly what you want?

EDIT: seems like a half dozen other people already expressed this sentiment

[King of Nowhere]

When you give a level 1 character access to level 5 capabilities, you open the door to whole new possibilities for substitution levels, alt-classes, templates, negative level adjustments, and a variety of cheese buried deep in the splatbooks that can throw a party way off balance.


The problem with this is not in the homebrewed stuff, but in the whole interaction with substitution levels, alt-classes, and other kind of cheese. So instead of removing the homebrew stuff you should maybe remove the cheese in this case. I'm not sure if it ever happened at my table, but if one player brought me that kind of homebrew-cheese frankenstein hybrid, I'd just stop it with an "it doesn't stack" or other similar ruling.

In fact, one distinct advantage of homebrewing for balance is that you can control exactly what stacks and what doesn't to prevent really broken stuff. Of course you need the players to trust you, but if you do it without malicious intent and have enough system mastery to make it work more often than not, generally you will be trusted.

[Bakkan]

What I really want to understand is this:
Why read through 50+ splatbooks, spend days figuring the class/feat/race combos, only to come up with something mildly similar to your concept, that requires a half dozen classes and doesn't work before level 12, when you can just homebrew something that is exactly what you want?

EDIT: seems like a half dozen other people already expressed this sentiment

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

When I am a player, I don't really care if the other players use homebrew, but I don't think I ever have. When I'm a DM, I will create my own monsters and magic items, but on the whole I prefer to let the system inform my worldbuilding. For example, animating the dead is relatively rare because it can only be accessed at level 5.

[Quertus]

Yes, there is a great deal that can be done with the published material. But there is also a great deal that can't be done with the published materials, else 3rd party sources wouldn't be a thing.

Yes, there is joy in figuring out how to do something by splat diving and creating a Frankenstein of half a dozen (or more!) classes. But there is also joy in creating something beautiful whole-cloth.

Yes, balance in 3e is everywhere. But homebrew allows you to expand the range of balance points in which a specific concept can easily live, thus allowing the players to more readily create a balanced party.

[Knaight]

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

This is a pretty good answer, and it drives at a fundamental divide among RPG players. For some, character creation is half the game, or at least a major minigame with a lot of enjoyment to it. Managing a lot of complex rules, spotting usable patterns in them, diving through source books, all of these are fun.

For others character creation is the tedious work you have to put in up front, and after you've gotten past that hurdle you can actually play the game. Going from the concept in your head to the mechanics in the quickest, easiest, and most intuitive fashion is a good thing, and character creation systems that favor that and have nothing that even resembles a minigame are preferred.

D&D 3.5 can do the second mode to a limited extent if you've got some very specific concepts. It can do the first mode for a great deal more, and it's an amazing system if you enjoy character creation for character creation. If you don't though, homebrew is a decent way to at least approach the second mode instead of dealing with the first.

[Vaern]

Still, I believe at large, the benefits of homebrew don't seem to outweigh the risks of breaking open a system that is already easy enough to break.
Also bear in mind that the DM has the final say in what is or isn't allowed. Saying "Homebrewed content is allowed in my games," doesn't mean "My players can create whatever you want and use it no matter how broken it is." Anything the players create should be submitted for review and approved before use, and any such content is subject to being rejected if a reasonable DM decides that it is broken.

Also bear in mind that the DM has the ability to retcon and redefine abilities on the fly if it is revealed that they were written in a specific way just to break the game in some way. This even happens occasionally in groups that only use published material. Say two classes gain untyped bonuses equal to their wisdom modifier to that armor class like Monk and Ninja. Someone tries stacking them to cheese their AC up - the DM might say, "No, they're essentially the same thing. I'm not going to let it stack with itself."
And let's say, for example, that someone *cough* was to create a divine-flavored prestige class for arcane casters, with Arcane Disciple (Sun) as a prerequisite. Let's say that hypothetically this prestige class had an "improved arcane disciple" feature at level 3 which allows the character to use his primary arcane casting ability score instead of wisdom to determine whether he can cast spells granted by Arcane Disciple and to determine their DC. And then let's say that, hypothetically, this prestige class also gained a "domain mastery" feature at level 6 which states that the character is no longer limited to preparing or casting spells granted by Arcane Disciple once per day.
Hypothetically, the creator and player of this prestige class might attempt to pick up Arcane Disciple (Healing), pointing out that these class features apply to all spells granted by Arcane Disciple and not just those belonging to the Sun domain, as may have been implied when the DM was reviewing the hypothetical class before the start of the hypothetical game.
As the DM in this purely hypothetical case, you have the ability to say, "Um, no. I'm not giving you full access to healing magic as a sorcerer. We're doing rewrites." You then proceed to grab a pen and errata the ability to apply only to the Sun domain.

[Deadline]

Of course, my argument shakes apart once you get to high level to epic level campaigns. Even if it didn't, the fact that your ECL can matter more than your Tier is enough to handle balance in game encounters as a DM. But of course this is spinning off into a different topic.

Your argument shakes apart at higher optimization levels, not just at higher character levels. But if you spend most of your time in games running from levels 1-6 it's much harder to see.


It would be more on point to say:
Homebrew doesn't exactly fix the issue of imbalance. If nothing else, as I've seen more often to be the case, it exacerbates the issue.

Therefore, how do you see that adding more rules to a rules heavy system simplify the issue of party balance?

I don't. I was pointing out that adding or not adding more rules via homebrew has no real impact on balance of the game, because the game is badly balanced even in core. So the argument of "I don't want to add homebrew because balance" isn't a solid argument.

Edit - And to clarify, I'm not saying "homebrew is balanced". Homebrew, just like the various splatbooks, should be reviewed for potential balance impacts it can have on your game. If you assume that a splatbook is balanced just because it is official, I think that is a mistake.

[King of Nowhere]

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

When I am a player, I don't really care if the other players use homebrew, but I don't think I ever have. When I'm a DM, I will create my own monsters and magic items, but on the whole I prefer to let the system inform my worldbuilding. For example, animating the dead is relatively rare because it can only be accessed at level 5.

As a player, I mostly agree with that. I am unlikely to ask for homebrew in character creation. Though I may point out that there are so many manuals and dragon articles and third party sources and a lot of those were written by people with no more system mastery than myself, so the divide between something I made up and something someone else made up is pretty thin. But yes, unlesss I come up with a really crazy concept I generally stick to existing material.

As a DM, I like to introduce homebrew here and there. I mostly do it to introduce mechanics that would not exist, or would not be attainable in my world. If you look at my homebrewed monsters (should be a link in my signature I just added) you may notice that each one of them has abilities that do not exist otherwise. Same if I make homebrewed classes and slap them on some npc. And that stuff, besides venting out my creative impulses, are good for fluff.

Anyway, differences here are mostly about tastes.

[tiercel]

Why homebrew? Well, for one, it’s not, strictly speaking, a choice between a RAW game (is there really even such a thing?) and one that contains homebrew, since homebrew is part of RAW:


The rules for creating your character provide a common ground for players, but you can tweak the rules to make your character unique. Any substantive changes, however, must be approved by the DM.

The examples that follow are in part cosmetic but include changing class and racial features. Sure, there are a lot of published variants of such things that came out after the PHB was published, but there certainly wasn’t an errata later saying “welp, since we published a whole bunch of racial variants and ACFs this page of the PHB no longer holds.”

[ngilop]

SO I read the OP and waite a while while my brain comprehended what was written.


this is the conclusions I came to.

OP states he never uses homebrew. then says how he has houserules. Seems extremely contradictory

OP states he plays strickly RAW. I fail to understand HOW, because RAW is actually unplayable in so many facets of the game its ridiculous.

OP makes may claims that homebrew disrupts the 'balance' of the base game. Has OP even read the books? I mean.. what?

[tedcahill2]

I may have to beg to differ on this point. I'm currently running a campaign with:

A Wizard
A Ranger
A Fighter/Artificer/Barbarian
A Truenamer


And they're all representing their roles well. It's one of the most successful games I've run, and I'm doing the whole thing by RAW (including multi-class penalties) except for the House Rules listed in my Registry. I'm not trying to say there can't be a power imbalance between the tiers, but it's a bit severe to claim they simply can't work together. They can, and the game can be fun for all regardless of tier.

Your claim is interesting considering that you clearly recognize the variance in power between tiers based on your own DM Registry.


4.In the interest of balancing game development, and to reflect the level of training it takes to develop "mundane" abilities compared to elite abilities, each tier below tier 1 will receive bonus combat XP from encounters. Players are responsible for remembering to add their own bonus XP to their character sheet.

Tier 2: 10% XP Bonus
Tier 3: 20% XP Bonus
Tier 4: 30% XP Bonus
Tier 5: 40% XP Bonus
Tier 6: 50% XP Bonus

[Alabenson]

I homebrew because their are certain concepts that the existing material in 3.5 either doesn't cover well or requires a hybrid of 3+ classes to realize. Not to mention all the mechanics that were created during 3.5's run that received no or virtually no support after their initial splatbook.

[inexorabletruth]

Your claim is interesting considering that you clearly recognize the variance in power between tiers based on your own DM Registry.

Hello! I'm back because I'm waiting on my games to update with new posts, and I thought I'd check in on my older threads.

I can try to answer some questions aimed at me.

Yes, of course I acknowledge that there are different tiers in the game. I also provided a more in depth description of what I mean by party balance, and invited anyone to give me a better word or phrase for what I am trying to say.

I wouldn't dare try to compare the warbly attempt at balance in 3.5 to the rubber stamped classes in 4E, where everyone has basically the same power level, because everyone is basically the same class refluffed. And I'm not 100% against homebrew. I just don't see why it's necessary to homebrew a race/class combo when it already can be built by RAW.

@ngilop
First of all, are you using blue text to be sarcastic, or because you like the color? I'm going to assume this isn't sarcasm, because I want to validate your questions. So here we go:


OP states he never uses homebrew. then says how he has houserules. Seems extremely contradictory

OP states he plays strickly RAW. I fail to understand HOW, because RAW is actually unplayable in so many facets of the game its ridiculous.

OP makes may claims that homebrew disrupts the 'balance' of the base game. Has OP even read the books? I mean.. what?


House rules and homebrew aren't the same thing. And even if they were my house rules aren't an attempt to create a race/class combo from scratch. I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction.
I play by RAW, but I openly admit to using house rules. I also concede that there are some classes, feats and skills that can use a little help. I tend to adhere to RAW more strictly than other DMs I have known, though. For instance, I don't allow homebrew races or classes. I don't hand wave mundane equipment, and I enforce multi-classing penalties, among a long list of other things I do that are by RAW. However, by RAW, it is technically impossible to roll a successful Spot check to know if you can see the sun while standing in an open field. I'm not trying to be foolish. I just don't get the need for homebrew race/class combos in D&D 3.5. And even in my farewell post, I conceded that I now have a better understanding for its purpose.
Yes, I have read many of the books, but I largely use the splats as reference material. Though I have read for pleasure Players Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Monster Manual 1-3, The Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5, Planar Handbook, Fiend Folio, Magic of Incarnum, Arms and Equipment Guide 3E, and Libris Mortis. They were not all good reads, to be honest. But I'm not sure why I have to defend my resume as a DM here. I feel my original post would be equally valid if I hadn't read any of these books.


@Deadline

I don't. I was pointing out that adding or not adding more rules via homebrew has no real impact on balance of the game, because the game is badly balanced even in core. So the argument of "I don't want to add homebrew because balance" isn't a solid argument.

Edit - And to clarify, I'm not saying "homebrew is balanced". Homebrew, just like the various splatbooks, should be reviewed for potential balance impacts it can have on your game. If you assume that a splatbook is balanced just because it is official, I think that is a mistake.

If it doesn't balance the game, and it doesn't create something that can't already be created in the currently established system, then it seems redundant to me. Maybe I'm missing something in the context. Do you have a solid example of a homebrew that represents something that simply doesn't exist in the currently established system, yet is still playable, and not broken? I'm certainly reasonable enough to yield this point if you have one.

[Heliomance]

If it doesn't balance the game, and it doesn't create something that can't already be created in the currently established system, then it seems redundant to me. Maybe I'm missing something in the context. Do you have a solid example of a homebrew that represents something that simply doesn't exist in the currently established system, yet is still playable, and not broken? I'm certainly reasonable enough to yield this point if you have one.

Falling Star Discipline (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?10707-Maneuvers-Falling-Star-Discipline). A new discipline for Tome of Battle, allowing the existing maneuver mechanic to be applied to ranged combat, and thus boosting mundane archers in the same way ToB boosted mundane melee fighters.

[Pleh]

I just don't see why it's necessary to homebrew a race/class combo when it already can be built by RAW.

Necessity is not a fair criterion of measurement. Nothing in RAW, the game, or anything being discussed is truly necessary.

We play because we want to, not out of any need. We homebrew because we want to, not because we need to.

If we wanted, we could abandon game rules completely and use freeform RPG. There is nothing essential about balance, RAW, or homebrew. There is only the kind of game we want to play.

This is a matter of subjective preferences, never objective facts. Homebrew has objective advantages and objective disadvantages, but it's only a tool that is useful at certain tasks.

[inexorabletruth]

Falling Star Discipline (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?10707-Maneuvers-Falling-Star-Discipline). A new discipline for Tome of Battle, allowing the existing maneuver mechanic to be applied to ranged combat, and thus boosting mundane archers in the same way ToB boosted mundane melee fighters.

Hmmm, based on the commentary I've read (which I'm going by because I'm in no position to play test it right now) I'd say it's been brought through the fire and come out strong. But it looks a looks a lot like a ranged template that can be applied to already existing martial classes. On the one hand, it doesn't really fit into the category of new homebrewed race or class, but it essentially strips the existing classes down to its chassis so thoroughly that it might as well be a new class. It still seems to preserve balance (give or take a point) and makes something original.

You've given me a lot to think about.

@Pleh

Necessity is not a fair criterion of measurement. Nothing in RAW, the game, or anything being discussed is truly necessary.

I have to say, I never like this argument in these types of discussions, but I will always respect them. You're not wrong. The point of the game is to have fun. So you do you. But I've already acknowledged that "because it's cool and I want it" makes sense to me as a reason why other DMs allow homebrew. It's not enough for me though, because I think it's more fun when I, and the players, have to work within the confines of the rules, because it allows players to have faith in the inherited system for the purposed of build, skill checks, campaign environment, and stability. Furthermore, it's a more intellectually stimulating pursuit to me.

Which is, ultimately, the reason why I never like this particular argument. It's non productive in the context of trying to understand the purpose of another form of gameplay. I know I sound like a Homebrew hater, or at least that's how I might be perceived for posting a thread like this. Rather, I'm expressing confusion about the need to reinvent the wheel in D&D 3.5. If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

However, if you're going to stand behind the discussion-proof armor of "because it's cool and I want it" then there is nothing I can learn from you.

[johnbragg]

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

When I am a player, I don't really care if the other players use homebrew, but I don't think I ever have. When I'm a DM, I will create my own monsters and magic items, but on the whole I prefer to let the system inform my worldbuilding. For example, animating the dead is relatively rare because it can only be accessed at level 5.

Do you see, though, that what you're doing is a real-life Knowledge: Splatbooks skill check?

Let's talk about Animate Dead at CL 5. That's where it is for PHB clerics. But if I want to play a spooooky necromancer--I can't do that until level 8 in the published class that has NECROMANCER in the name. Meanwhile my Wizard buddy can do it at level 7.

I'm sure that there's some early-entry splatbook cheese that would let you move Animate Dead down a level, or some way around it.

Or you could just take the published DN class, rewrite it and fix it the way your table wants it. "But that's homebrewing!" Yeah, it is.

[Heliomance]

If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

What are your thoughts on iron-shod wooden spoked wheels vs pneumatic tyres?

[Bakkan]

Do you see, though, that what you're doing is a real-life Knowledge: Splatbooks skill check?

Sure. I like making Knowledge: Splatbooks checks, and it's satisfying to me when I succeed.


Let's talk about Animate Dead at CL 5. That's where it is for PHB clerics. But if I want to play a spooooky necromancer--I can't do that until level 8 in the published class that has NECROMANCER in the name. Meanwhile my Wizard buddy can do it at level 7.

Class names have no relation to their use in a build or a game, at least when I build or play. The Dread Necromancer, like every class, is a collection of abilities tiered by level, sometimes with associated RP requirements, and whether or not I use them is determined by if they help me get the abilities I want at the power level I'm aiming for and if the RP requirements make sense for the character.


I'm sure that there's some early-entry splatbook cheese that would let you move Animate Dead down a level, or some way around it.

And figuring out such a combination of abilities causes an almost euphoric sensation, even if I don't wind up ever using it in a game. The psychological "high" from discovering something new in an external system is very different than the one you get from a creative act. It's similar to what I do in my day job as a mathematician, in that proving a new theorem, no matter how small, makes me feel good all day.


Or you could just take the published DN class, rewrite it and fix it the way your table wants it. "But that's homebrewing!" Yeah, it is.

And I would never criticize another player at my table for doing so. I would not do it, since it provides me far less satisfaction than working within the system.

A fundamental difference between the two viewpoints, as Knaight pointed out well, is how character creation is viewed. One type of player sees it as a means to an end, something to get through to get to the real game. I am of the second type, and I take at least half my satisfaction out of a typical game by finding the best combination of classes, feats, etc. to realize a concept at the game's power and character level. Shortcutting that part of the experience by homebrewing up a class that does exactly what you want strikes me as being like playing Dark Souls in God Mode: A lot of fun for a lot of people, but not at all for me.

[inexorabletruth]

Falling Star Discipline (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?10707-Maneuvers-Falling-Star-Discipline). A new discipline for Tome of Battle, allowing the existing maneuver mechanic to be applied to ranged combat, and thus boosting mundane archers in the same way ToB boosted mundane melee fighters.

About an hour later.

Ok, after a quick cup of coffee, my brain is already teeming with questions, which arguably may derail my own thread, so, if it goes that way, we can approach this in the homebrew thread later, to respect the rules of the Playground.

First of all, the build looks like an attempt to grant archers magic arrows at Level 1 more than an attempt to emulate Tome of Battle, which (although it is an awesome book) is an attempt to give melee classes magic weapons at Level 1. And I take issue with giving ranged fighters nicer things than they already have at low levels.

Here's why:

Ammo, especially MW ammo is cheap.
Special Materials can create magic-like effects at level 1 and fits within an archers budget at level one. Monks can even afford a MW shuriken or two at level one by RAW.
Adding spell-like effects to ranged weapons at conceivably low levels is already possible by RAW, especially if you add Arms and Equipment Guide to the mix (yes I know it's 3E, but I've already defended why 3E and 3.5 blend nicely enough).
Arcane Archer (though I will admit it is unfair that only Elves and Half-Elves get this even when though their favored class doesn't have anything to do with arrows) already allows you to do this and handles it well enough to accomplish the goal of the homebrew.



Tomb of Battle is an attempt to give nice things to the meat shields who have high taxes for weapons, armor, feats, and skills. They are constantly taking a beating so the archer or blaster can stand safely in the back. A tank's max dex penalties from armor can be an expensive thing to overcome, but an archer's lack of initial DPS can easily be circumvented with judicious application of WBL.

In short, I wouldn't allow this in a campaign (without further explaination of why it is crucial to build it that way) I ran, because it seems mostly redundant. In the contextual crunch of specifically Tomb of Battle, it seems balanced and reasonable. However, characters are rarely built using only one book, unless the DM wills it so. Now, if I was running a campaign and said "We're only using Tome of Battle for class selection" and a player presented it to me, I must concede that I would certainly allow it.

[Hecuba]

[...]it allows players to have faith in the inherited system for the purposed of build, skill checks, campaign environment, and stability. Furthermore, it's a more intellectually stimulating pursuit to me.

I find creating and assessing homebrew to be an intellectually stimulating activity as well. I understand you may not, but please do consider that the process itself is seen as desirable to many who engage in it.

Moreover, I don't generally support using any homebrew you in which you don't have the kind of "faith" that you describe. "Faith" is also a good word to underline what you should not do here: specifically, you should not take the balance and soundness of homebrew on faith. You should assess it deliberately and rationally. (I would also suggest you do the same for 1st party material - otherwise you might end up with a party of with a Fighter, an Archivist, a Truenamer, and a Spell-to-Power Erudite and not see a train wreck coming).


If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

Well, to start, its worth acknowledging you can get jet engines and shiny square blocks with CharOp too.
But anyhow, here are several situations where homebrew can represent a superior tool to CharOp builds:
The character you want, while possible to build in 3.5 at some arbitrary level, would require a contrived and clunky build. This is less of an issue for short campaigns starting at an arbitrary level - you can often manage to massage into something close enough and playable if you know you the campaign will run from (say) levels 12 to 14.
But if you expect to start the character at 1 and level it to 20, a build that is clunky to play at certain levels can be annoying - both because it is finicky to play and because it can break immersion.
You are playing a campaign that, to some degree, integrates the class-based structure into the setting. D&D 3.5 is usually played as an almost-classless game at this point, but it does support class-based aesthetics fairly well if you want to integrate them into your world-building. For such situations, light homebrew (like the example I gave earlier in the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?551637-Why-Homebrew-in-3-5&p=22862131#post22862131)) can be a good way to accommodate a particular idea and integrate it into the setting.
To borrow your metaphor, some games aim for shiny square blocks or jet engines instead of wheels. If you are playing a game that is intentionally running tier 5, your options for managing an arcane-themed caster are significantly more limited than they are for 3.5 as a whole. If you want a tier 2 martial character, you are likewise going to face some difficulty. There are some ways to manage it, but the options are more sparse. Homebrew lets you fill these gaps with greater precision. It also lets you do it with less hand-waving and re-fluffing.



In short, I wouldn't allow this in a campaign (without further explaination of why it is crucial to build it that way) I ran, because it seems mostly redundant. In the contextual crunch of specifically Tomb of Battle, it seems balanced and reasonable. However, characters are rarely built using only one book, unless the DM wills it so. Now, if I was running a campaign and said "We're only using Tome of Battle for class selection" and a player presented it to me, I must concede that I would certainly allow it.
What if someone happens to simply like the mechanical feel of playing an initiator (having maneuver cards for your crusader can be fun in and of itself) and wants to do that while playing an archer?

[ComaVision]

My problem with making an archery character in 3.5 is that it is nearly impossible to do effectively unless you have extensive system mastery. It's also a very popular archetype, and often something that new players gravitate to.

My solutions as a DM are:


Let them try to do it anyway and probably get frustrated over their inability to contribute meaningfully.
Give them all the information they need to make it effective, knowing that without context and experience this is will probably overwhelm them.
Disallow new players from playing archery characters.
Allow some sort of homebrew or houserule solutions that make archery harder to mess up.


In my opinion, the 4th option is best for integrating new players. Tome of Battle's greatest strength, asides from giving mundane characters interesting choices, is that it's really hard to mess up. Picking maneuvers at random will give you an acceptable character.

(It may be worth noting that I also don't like "balancing" characters by showing favoritism in treasure/wealth. I think any option/boon I give to one player should be available to all the players in my game(s).)

[inexorabletruth]

My problem with making an archery character in 3.5 is that it is nearly impossible to do effectively unless you have extensive system mastery. It's also a very popular archetype, and often something that new players gravitate to.

Hmm. In all sincerity, I don't know why that would be your experience. Put your best stat in DEX, take Point Blank Shot and possibly Rapid Reload (depending on your BAB) if you have room for another feat. (I'm assuming we're discussing level 1 because you are talking about introducing the game to new players.) All of this can be found in the PHB. For money saving options, but some ranks in Craft, and to avoid AoOs, rank up Tumble. Stay in the back, launch MW arrows, and if someone bursts through the line, roll a Tumble check DC 15 by RAW to escape and shoot without provoking AoO. The hardest part about a ranged fighter is the bookkeeping caused from losing arrows, finding rations, casting spells, and stating animal companions. I usually recommend to my new players that they pick Ranger as their starter character, because of the gradual nature in which it introduces concepts like combat, skill checks, animal companions, and spell casting.


(It may be worth noting that I also don't like "balancing" characters by showing favoritism in treasure/wealth. I think any option/boon I give to one player should be available to all the players in my game(s).)

I never suggested this, in case that is the misunderstanding. I grant my players starting gold by RAW, or WBL by RAW in most cases. Although there are some campaigns I run where this doesn't make sense for the story setting or character background, at which point I may have to adjudicate.

@Hecuba

I find creating and assessing homebrew to be an intellectually stimulating activity as well. I understand you may not, but please do consider that the process itself is seen as desirable to many who engage in it.

I agree completely... in fact the post you are quoting was meant to emphasize that point and clearly define that this specific point is in a weird way, unhelpful. Anything that makes the gameplay fun for you and the group in D&D is acceptable. And I'm not trying to tell people how to have fun. The original point of the thread was to understand why (aside from the fact that the creator just wants to) someone would create a from scratch homebrew or allow it in a campaign, aside from the fact that "It's fun, and I want to do it." The subtext is, I would like to see some convincing arguments in the event that I may want to include Homebrew race/class combos in my campaigns assuming I saw some compelling arguments for the case. The fact that I'm not sold on the necessity for Homebrew in a game does nothing for or against how other people would play the game, and I sincerely hope that I have not communicated the contrary.


What if someone happens to simply like the mechanical feel of playing an initiator (having maneuver cards for your crusader can be fun in and of itself) and wants to do that while playing an archer?
Hmm. I would have some questions for the player, to test their resolve. For instance, I would recommend the alternate build concepts I presented earlier in this thread, then I would simply recommend they fluff the stances, as I often have in campaigns in the past. If they still held strong to their conviction, I would present the concept to the group, and take a consensus. Based on their input I would adjudicate. Assuming it passes all that rigor, I must confess I would allow it. Which would be, honestly, an absolute first for me.

Also, I would want to implement the condition that the Homebrew will be banned if it opens up a dialog of, "Hey, if she gets that thing, why can't I have this thing?" The games I make come with enough paperwork without adding more reading assignments and midweek play tests.

[King of Nowhere]

One more reason to homebrew that hasn't really been brought out here is the case of a DM that wants to surprise the players. My DM is often frustrated that he will go out of his way to give exotic descriptions to various creatures to make them sound exotic, mysterious and /or dangerous, and his more experienced players will be all "oh, that's just a ______, CR _____. Nothing special. [Possibly following with a list of stats]". It breaks immersion for him. It also breaks realism, because our characters are not supposed to know all that stuff, and yet they somehow act as if they did.
So he throws the occasional homebrewed monster at us, to keep us guessing.
Ufortunately for him, most of his homebrewed monsters ended up killed before making a single attack roll, because we got some nice crowd control in the group and the DM is unlucky with saving throws. But still, the reason for throwing such monsters at the party remains. In fact, it grows with growing system mastery of the party. If you want to throw out something mysterious that the players won't be able to identify immediately, homebrewing can do it. Anything else is just an opposed system mastery check with the players.

[Alabenson]

And figuring out such a combination of abilities causes an almost euphoric sensation, even if I don't wind up ever using it in a game. The psychological "high" from discovering something new in an external system is very different than the one you get from a creative act. It's similar to what I do in my day job as a mathematician, in that proving a new theorem, no matter how small, makes me feel good all day.

And I would never criticize another player at my table for doing so. I would not do it, since it provides me far less satisfaction than working within the system.

The key point here, and to your credit you do acknowledge it, is that while you take immense pleasure in character creation and system mastery not all players feel this way. Many of the players I've played with viewed character creation as a necessary evil at best, so anything that could be done to streamline the process was greatly appreciated.

[inexorabletruth]

In fact, it grows with growing system mastery of the party. If you want to throw out something mysterious that the players won't be able to identify immediately, homebrewing can do it. Anything else is just an opposed system mastery check with the players.

I can see why this is a common solution. My personal tactic is to:

Start with some ground rules about what counts as common knowledge.
Agree that meta-knowledge is sternly discouraged.
Adjudicate knowledge checks for what would not be commonly known monsters (DC = 10+HD by RAW), especially if a character attempts to use meta knowledge in combat.
Run rampant with templates.


Still, when Homebrewing a world, Homebrew monsters (especially for key enforcers and BBEGs) probably make a lot more sense. I'm not as likely to encounter that, because I run in official settings, but that's just because I love the lore.

[Urudin]

snip

To be honest, as a player, after a lot of years playing D&D, i'd rather have homebrewed monster than one i have fought hundreds of times/frankenstein template-made-monster.
And as a DM, i do not understand how you set up rules about what counts as common knowledge. When does it start? When does it ends? What logic is in that? In my personal view as both player and dungeon master, you cannot play without meta-knowledge in those parts of play.

[inexorabletruth]

And as a DM, i do not understand how you set up rules about what counts as common knowledge. When does it start? When does it ends? What logic is in that? In my personal view as both player and dungeon master, you cannot play without meta-knowledge in those parts of play.

Those are the exact questions that get addressed before the start of the game. This is especially true when the players are going to build themed characters in your setting. It won't due for a Ranger to have Favored Enemy: Goblin in setting where goblins don't exist on this plane, or are in some other way extremely rare.

And it won't due to have a zombie slaying Paladin in a world where Undead simply doesn't exist.

To me, it makes good sense to discuss with your players the kind of environment they will be playing in. Most of my campaigns operate under the assumption that all base races, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, kobolds, and troglodytes are common knowledge. More undead campaigns will replace this with vampires, zombies, mummies, wights, allips, and ghosts.

There are other situations where a creature may be common knowledge (like a member of the Fey, per se) but knowing how to kill it is not so common. I believe Cold Iron is the weapon of choice versus a Verdant Prince, but a character won't know that unless they roll the appropriate knowledge check to benefit from that insight.

But, as I said, all of this is discussed before the game starts. It's on the player to play true to their character, and on the DM to adjudicate fairly. But all this is a bit off-topic.

I would like to add that, I have used Homebrewed monsters before in my early campaigns. It wasn't my taste, but I can see why it's prevalently used as a DM. I have, over the years, gotten a lot of praise for presenting interesting monsters and gripping encounters, even though I rip straight from the pages.

Check this link (http://monsterfinder.dndrunde.de). It is, hands down, my favorite link for finding cool monsters that already exist in the source material. The admins work within WoTC guidelines, so there is nothing on there that can't be shared.

[Quertus]

Necessity is not a fair criterion of measurement. Nothing in RAW, the game, or anything being discussed is truly necessary.

We play because we want to, not out of any need. We homebrew because we want to, not because we need to.

If we wanted, we could abandon game rules completely and use freeform RPG. There is nothing essential about balance, RAW, or homebrew. There is only the kind of game we want to play.

This is a matter of subjective preferences, never objective facts. Homebrew has objective advantages and objective disadvantages, but it's only a tool that is useful at certain tasks.

+1 this.


@Pleh

I have to say, I never like this argument in these types of discussions, but I will always respect them. You're not wrong. The point of the game is to have fun. So you do you. But I've already acknowledged that "because it's cool and I want it" makes sense to me as a reason why other DMs allow homebrew. It's not enough for me though, because I think it's more fun when I, and the players, have to work within the confines of the rules, because it allows players to have faith in the inherited system for the purposed of build, skill checks, campaign environment, and stability. Furthermore, it's a more intellectually stimulating pursuit to me.

Which is, ultimately, the reason why I never like this particular argument. It's non productive in the context of trying to understand the purpose of another form of gameplay. I know I sound like a Homebrew hater, or at least that's how I might be perceived for posting a thread like this. Rather, I'm expressing confusion about the need to reinvent the wheel in D&D 3.5. If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

However, if you're going to stand behind the discussion-proof armor of "because it's cool and I want it" then there is nothing I can learn from you.

Allow me to suggest Angry's "8 Aesthetics of Play" as required reading on this topic. What you think is more fun is irrelevant to what your players find more fun. People who have different sources of fun can easily talk past each other. But what you need to learn from them is, "why homebrew? Because it's fun! (and, possibly, because splat diving isn't)". So, yes, there absolutely is something for you to learn. Have you learned it yet, or do I need to keep babbling?

Now, I personally enjoy some level of "what can I build with the rules I have" - Heck, I even enjoy the "how can I build a successful party with this random assortment of characters" minigame. But I much more enjoy, "what my character did has meaning, and through their actions I accomplish the creation of this new homebrew". Even if that homebrew is strictly inferior to some Frankenstein of RAW.

Know your players. What do they find fun? Use that to determine what you should consider including in your games.


I find creating and assessing homebrew to be an intellectually stimulating activity as well. I understand you may not, but please do consider that the process itself is seen as desirable to many who engage in it.

The character you want, while possible to build in 3.5 at some arbitrary level, would require a contrived and clunky build. This is less of an issue for short campaigns starting at an arbitrary level - you can often manage to massage into something close enough and playable if you know you the campaign will run from (say) levels 12 to 14.
But if you expect to start the character at 1 and level it to 20, a build that is clunky to play at certain levels can be annoying - both because it is finicky to play and because it can break immersion.

To borrow your metaphor, some games aim for shiny square blocks or jet engines instead of wheels. If you are playing a game that is intentionally running tier 5, your options for managing an arcane-themed caster are significantly more limited than they are for 3.5 as a whole. If you want a tier 2 martial character, you are likewise going to face some difficulty. There are some ways to manage it, but the options are more sparse. Homebrew lets you fill these gaps with greater precision. It also lets you do it with less hand-waving and re-fluffing.


If I summarized these bits as intellectual stimulation, beauty/elegance, and game balance, would I be missing any substantial concepts?


Hmm. In all sincerity, I don't know why that would be your experience. Put your best stat in DEX, take Point Blank Shot and possibly Rapid Reload (depending on your BAB) if you have room for another feat. (I'm assuming we're discussing level 1 because you are talking about introducing the game to new players.) All of this can be found in the PHB. For money saving options, but some ranks in Craft, and to avoid AoOs, rank up Tumble. Stay in the back, launch MW arrows, and if someone bursts through the line, roll a Tumble check DC 15 by RAW to escape and shoot without provoking AoO. The hardest part about a ranged fighter is the bookkeeping caused from losing arrows, finding rations, casting spells, and stating animal companions. I usually recommend to my new players that they pick Ranger as their starter character, because of the gradual nature in which it introduces concepts like combat, skill checks, animal companions, and spell casting.

IME, the most successful archers included one who went crazy with race and templates and used the party Cleric to buff their BAB up to appropriate levels, and a Druid / Arcane Archer. Oh, and some dark whisper gnome Rogues with massive SA damage and infusions or essentia or something to beat tremor sense, and a Psion who mind switched for a great body. And the guy who ran on luck with a Bow of the Solars. And a girl who... ran on luck at guessing squats and hitting invisible creatures. And the guy who made his own homebrew. And the guy who splat dove to build some archery monster I never did completely understand. The invisible pixie, the sail burner, and guy who never let anything get near him technically had long archery careers, but I wouldn't call any of them particularly successful.

So, um, there's a lot of ways to skin that cat, IME. But, without significant system mastery, these builds are hard to not wind up as the least valuable player - and this from the guy whose party has Fighter and Monk MVPs!

[inexorabletruth]

But what you need to learn from them is, "why homebrew? Because it's fun! (and, possibly, because splat diving isn't)". So, yes, there absolutely is something for you to learn. Have you learned it yet, or do I need to keep babbling?


Ok... I've seriously already addressed this more than once.

I can't learn more from this concept because I've already known it since the very first time I played TTRPG. As I've mentioned many times already, I'm not trying to tell you how to have fun. I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the need for Homebrew to decide if it can flavor my fun and my players' fun. Which I already get pretty high praise for my campaigns. But if you're not growing, your dying, right? I'm not saying "Homebrew sucks! People who Homebrew suck!" I'm asking "Why bother if you can already build it within the confines of RAW." I want to know if it's worth inclusion into my games... if someone can present an argument that changes my perspective on whether or not Homebrew race/class combos. As of yet, I have found one highly specific instance in which I have to honestly admit, yes.


Now, I personally enjoy some level of "what can I build with the rules I have" - Heck, I even enjoy the "how can I build a successful party with this random assortment of characters" minigame. But I much more enjoy, "what my character did has meaning, and through their actions I accomplish the creation of this new homebrew". Even if that homebrew is strictly inferior to some Frankenstein of RAW.[QUOTE]

Ironically, CharOp isn't even my strength. Rules adjudication is though. I have significant evidence to believe that I run fair, engaging, and expansive campaigns which allow plenty of freedom for RP and action as would fit the players' needs. I also rarely have issues with party balance. You don't have to take my word for it. I keep references in my Registry. However, my abilities as a DM are not in question. Whether or not Homebrewing is necessary in 3.5 is.


[QUOTE=Quertus;22869111]IME, the most successful archers included one who went crazy with race and templates and used the party Cleric to buff their BAB up to appropriate levels, and a Druid / Arcane Archer. Oh, and some dark whisper gnome Rogues with massive SA damage and infusions or essentia or something to beat tremor sense, and a Psion who mind switched for a great body. And the guy who ran on luck with a Bow of the Solars. And a girl who... ran on luck at guessing squats and hitting invisible creatures. And the guy who made his own homebrew. And the guy who splat dove to build some archery monster I never did completely understand. The invisible pixie, the sail burner, and guy who never let anything get near him technically had long archery careers, but I wouldn't call any of them particularly successful.

So, um, there's a lot of ways to skin that cat, IME. But, without significant system mastery, these builds are hard to not wind up as the least valuable player - and this from the guy whose party has Fighter and Monk MVPs!

The context to which you are discussing refers specifically to a campaign for new players. At low op, simple builds are more than adequate for Rangers and fit squarely within the portfolio of Tier 3 with little or no fuss.

[Hecuba]

@Hecuba

I agree completely... in fact the post you are quoting was meant to emphasize that point and clearly define that this specific point is in a weird way, unhelpful. Anything that makes the gameplay fun for you and the group in D&D is acceptable. And I'm not trying to tell people how to have fun. The original point of the thread was to understand why (aside from the fact that the creator just wants to) someone would create a from scratch homebrew or allow it in a campaign, aside from the fact that "It's fun, and I want to do it." The subtext is, I would like to see some convincing arguments in the event that I may want to include Homebrew race/class combos in my campaigns assuming I saw some compelling arguments for the case. The fact that I'm not sold on the necessity for Homebrew in a game does nothing for or against how other people would play the game, and I sincerely hope that I have not communicated the contrary.

I don't think you have indicated any particular vindictive tone against homebrew. That comment, however, was making a deliberate point that I do think is important. But to be clear, the point is not just "you should let people use it because they like it."

Ultimately, much like CharOp, homebrew is one of the basic toolkits available to address getting what you want out of the system when it does not provide it in a straightforward manner. Taken together, they represent two different tool-kits that address largely the same sets of underlying needs and wants. Moreover, because of the modularity of 3.5, both are very broad and powerful tool-kits. Either one can probably find a solution to most of the more common problems, wants, and needs for the system. And people have variations in which tool-set they prefer.

But if you presume that one makes the other unnecessary, you neglect the situations where the other will present a better solution. To use the example already present, I would generally posit that using the Falling Star discipline linked earlier is probably a strictly better solution for building a competent archer than using a concluded build involving WBL-mancy propping up precision damage. The build will likely have a smoother leveling curve, the mechanical interactions will be more engaging, the power floor will be more consistent, and the system mastery requirement will be lower. About the only downside is the initial effort to assess and present it.

Likewise, viewing CharOp as the presumed solution and Homebrew as one that requires higher justification obscures the fact that the drawbacks of the two toolkits are also very similar. The person who digs through D&DWiki and brings a Lightning Warrior to a game is not a particularly different problem - either in root cause or in effects on a table that allows it unwittingly - than someone who digs through this board and brings a Twice-Betrayer of Shar. Both will break the game in the absence of significant restraint and system mastery, and there is very little qualitative difference in how they break the game. I would say the primary difference is which of them you've developed the skill set to recognize easily.



Hmm. I would have some questions for the player, to test their resolve. For instance, I would recommend the alternate build concepts I presented earlier in this thread, then I would simply recommend they fluff the stances, as I often have in campaigns in the past. If they still held strong to their conviction, I would present the concept to the group, and take a consensus. Based on their input I would adjudicate. Assuming it passes all that rigor, I must confess I would allow it. Which would be, honestly, an absolute first for me.

Also, I would want to implement the condition that the Homebrew will be banned if it opens up a dialog of, "Hey, if she gets that thing, why can't I have this thing?" The games I make come with enough paperwork without adding more reading assignments and midweek play tests.

Indeed, ongoing time investment is a very good reason not to use homebrew. I would go so far as to say it is probably the most sound objection you could have to its inclusion.

There are only really 2 other reasons I personally consider to be noteworthy concerns: portability of characters across different gaming groups and quality control*. Of these, only time investment acts as an indefinite and universal constraint: quality control you can learn to manage as you use homebrew more (the bad stuff gets easier to spot with practice) and portability is not a concern for every game or every table. The time investment concern, however, is - especially if you want to manage home-brew well.

That said, you can manage the time concerns with occasional inclusions that you build upon. Between "yes" and "no" lies "I won't have time to evaluate that this campaign, but I can work it into the next one if you like" and "maybe, but I want a second opinion from the GITP home-brew board because I can't examine it as much as I'd like right now."

And, once you done this once, if you keep a folder of examples you've adjudicated before - well, then you've effectively started building a sourcebook you can dip into if you like.


*Yes, WOTC published a good deal of broken content, but their publication standards are at least better than D&D Wiki.

[King of Nowhere]

I can see why this is a common solution. My personal tactic is to:

Start with some ground rules about what counts as common knowledge.
Agree that meta-knowledge is sternly discouraged.
Adjudicate knowledge checks for what would not be commonly known monsters (DC = 10+HD by RAW), especially if a character attempts to use meta knowledge in combat.
Run rampant with templates.


Still, when Homebrewing a world, Homebrew monsters (especially for key enforcers and BBEGs) probably make a lot more sense. I'm not as likely to encounter that, because I run in official settings, but that's just because I love the lore.

yeah, but even if you pretend that you don't know the monster, and you pretend that you won't know its vulnerabilities, you still know exactly what it does, and you, the player, have a whole different pshycological reaction to it. You don't see it as "this big unfathomable scary monster", you see it as "this thing I must pretend to not know what it is".
Pretending to not know something is no substitute for actually not knowing. And I'd have never tought I'd write about the virtues of real ignorance as opposed to faked one. :smallbiggrin:

[inexorabletruth]

That said, you can manage the time concerns with occasional inclusions that you build upon. Between "yes" and "no" lies "I won't have time to evaluate that this campaign, but I can work it into the next one if you like" and "maybe, but I want a second opinion from the GITP home-brew board because I can't examine it as much as I'd like right now."

And, once you done this once, if you keep a folder of examples you've adjudicated before - well, then you've effectively started building a sourcebook you can dip into if you like.

That's actually pretty smart.

As a long time advocate of bringing gaming questions and woes to the Playground, I'm embarrassed to admit that I honestly hadn't thought of cataloging Homebrews into a portfolio and cross-referencing it with the minds on the Homebrew forum. I've always isolated them into a campaign specific analysis and made a judgment therein.

It's weird how you get tunnel visioned, sometimes. I guess it's because I've had almost no need for the Homebrew forum in the past as a DM or as a player since I tend to run official systems.

Okay. :smallsmile:

I could be willing to consider this in future endeavors to run a campaign. I'm not saying it would ever be easy to score a win for Homebrew in my campaigns. But I can concede to the possibility of accepting a well tested, thoroughly scrutinized, group approved Race or Class concept that could improve the overall game experience for the party.

[Nifft]

I could be willing to consider this in future endeavors to run a campaign. I'm not saying it would ever be easy to score a win for Homebrew in my campaigns. But I can concede to the possibility of accepting a well tested, thoroughly scrutinized, group approved Race or Class concept that could improve the overall game experience for the party.

In my games, that's what happens for official content, too.

I have a separate private campaign wiki for each game, and I put all non-SRD content in the campaign's wiki.

This saves the players from needing to buy books, and it allows homebrew / houserules / splatbook additions / UA variants / adaptations / whatever to all be transparently visible in an easy-to-reference location.

[Doctor Awkward]

Because in spite of the depth of things covered by the first-party books, creative people will always come up with an idea that the rules do not directly cover.

For a prime examples, search out efforts to replicate Zatoichi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatoichi) in D&D 3.5

I also once played a psionic variant of Jade Phoenix Mage that I greatly enjoyed.

[ComaVision]

The context to which you are discussing refers specifically to a campaign for new players. At low op, simple builds are more than adequate for Rangers and fit squarely within the portfolio of Tier 3 with little or no fuss.

I don't consider plinking away 1d8 per turn to be meaningfully contributing to the group. Rangers and Scouts are not T3 by default, they are T4. They are poorly designed classes and small things (such as ToB-like) content can make them much easier for a new player.

DR totally invalidates archers out-of-the-box.

[Quertus]

Ok... I've seriously already addressed this more than once.

I can't learn more from this concept because I've already known it since the very first time I played TTRPG. As I've mentioned many times already, I'm not trying to tell you how to have fun. I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the need for Homebrew to decide if it can flavor my fun and my players' fun. Which I already get pretty high praise for my campaigns. But if you're not growing, your dying, right? I'm not saying "Homebrew sucks! People who Homebrew suck!" I'm asking "Why bother if you can already build it within the confines of RAW." I want to know if it's worth inclusion into my games... if someone can present an argument that changes my perspective on whether or not Homebrew race/class combos. As of yet, I have found one highly specific instance in which I have to honestly admit, yes.

I also rarely have issues with party balance. You don't have to take my word for it. I keep references in my Registry. However, my abilities as a DM are not in question. Whether or not Homebrewing is necessary in 3.5 is.

The context to which you are discussing refers specifically to a campaign for new players. At low op, simple builds are more than adequate for Rangers and fit squarely within the portfolio of Tier 3 with little or no fuss.

We're talking past each other. Let me try again.

Do I play Wizards because it's necessary, or because that's what I enjoy? Do I want to play an existing character because it's necessary, or because it's what I enjoy? Do I want to build my own character rather than play a pre-gen because it's necessary, or because it's what I enjoy? Do I want to play a character rather than a playing piece because it's necessary, or because it's what I enjoy?

Do I want homebrew because it's necessary, or because I enjoy it?

Every time you use the word "necessary", I'm asking, "for what? For fun? Or for something else?". Because, for some, homebrew is necessary for fun; for others, it's necessary for something else.

So, it sounds like you're asking, "will homebrew help my group?". To answer that, we'd have to know your group. Presumably, we don't. So that's all you. Know your group. If you've had the same group forever, will keep the same group forever until y'all all die, there might be exactly one correct answer to this question - barring y'all doing that whole "growing and changing" thing humans are so fond of.

So, the best we can do is try to give you examples of "X group wanted Y homebrew for Z reason" - or, better yet, "X group implemented Y homebrew for Z reason, and had these results:". And then you try to understand what happened, and pattern match it to any new scenarios you encounter.

So, under what conditions is what kind of homebrew beneficial to the group? In particular, when the group starts with the bias of "why homebrew when you can build it in RAW?"?

Well, obviously, when you can't build it in RAW is a good time for brew. What if someone wants an archery feat that doesn't exist? Sounds like a good time for brew. So you make the new feat, and the player is happy that they get to play what they want to play. Then you add it to the world, because why not?

Well, what if "adding something to the campaign world" was itself the goal? I mean, sure, the adventurers could open a bar, or found a kingdom, or sire children. But, for some players, that's nothing like having a custom spell (or series of spells) named after their character, or starting some new order, complete with its own prestige class. Having that definitive mechanical effect on the campaign world means something to some people.

Are your players among them?

If so, then allowing them to alter the world with brew will mean something.

[Quertus]

Indeed, ongoing time investment is a very good reason not to use homebrew. I would go so far as to say it is probably the most sound objection you could have to its inclusion.

There are only really 2 other reasons I personally consider to be noteworthy concerns: portability of characters across different gaming groups and quality control*. Of these, only time investment acts as an indefinite and universal constraint: quality control you can learn to manage as you use homebrew more (the bad stuff gets easier to spot with practice) and portability is not a concern for every game or every table. The time investment concern, however, is - especially if you want to manage home-brew well.

That said, you can manage the time concerns with occasional inclusions that you build upon. Between "yes" and "no" lies "I won't have time to evaluate that this campaign, but I can work it into the next one if you like" and "maybe, but I want a second opinion from the GITP home-brew board because I can't examine it as much as I'd like right now."

And, once you done this once, if you keep a folder of examples you've adjudicated before - well, then you've effectively started building a sourcebook you can dip into if you like.


*Yes, WOTC published a good deal of broken content, but their publication standards are at least better than D&D Wiki.

What is the difference between homebrew and 1st party content? Quality? Balance? Need to be monitored, immediately and over time? No. Those are arguably equally issues of both.

In point of fact, the homebrew I and my friends have made is generally higher quality, better balanced, and in less need of lengthy review / filed with fewer hidden interactions than first party content.

The differences, that I am aware of, are as follows:

Homebrew isn't RAW. Except it is. So, next...

Homebrew doesn't port well between tables. This is an issue, but, honestly, not all characters are suited to all tables to begin with, so this is, to my mind, merely a subset of "characters don't port well between tables".

Homebrew is easier to modify than RAW.

With homebrew, you are more likely to know the author, and to be able to give and get feedback.

Homebrew hurts the joy of splat diving in a way that RAW doesn't.


And I'd have never tought I'd write about the virtues of real ignorance as opposed to faked one. :smallbiggrin:

I can only hope that that's because you expected me to do so first.


I could be willing to consider this in future endeavors to run a campaign. I'm not saying it would ever be easy to score a win for Homebrew in my campaigns. But I can concede to the possibility of accepting a well tested, thoroughly scrutinized, group approved Race or Class concept that could improve the overall game experience for the party.

Don't forget to include sample characters for the Playground to compare to. "Balanced" is meaningless without a "to what?", especially in a game with as diverse a playing field as 3e.

And, as I mentioned above, it's a balancing act of why your specific players want brew, and what enjoyment they'll get out of it, vs what enjoyment they'll lose from splat diving and forcing square pegs into round holes.

Personally, I happen to prefer for some games to include brew, and some not. Not a "this game will/won't have brew" mandate, but an organic, sometimes one or more people care, other times, we stick to RAW kinda thing. So that we just naturally experience the game both ways.

For PC content, that is. For monsters, I prefer all games to include maybe 5-10% homebrew opponents, to add unique flavor to the world, and have characters overcome both standard and unique challenges in their adventures.

[Endarire]

-Customization and personalization. If I'm the GM or the GM is willing and able to let me do something custom, it's a possibility!

-3.x doesn't have everything. There is no officially-printed PrC that progresses manifesting and martial maneuvers and stances. There are plenty of things that exist but are poorly statted/conceived.

-Because if I didn't want any notable creative input into what I did in a game, why not play something else?

[Afgncaap5]

A lot of good things have already been said here. Just to toss my two cents in...

...I homebrew things for my home games, usually to handle a scenario where the game's assumed fantasy doesn't fit the fantasy of the world I'm running or, alternatively, to make a kind of world effect that would be expected from the game world's lore.

Like, when I wanted a "Waterfall Elemental" ("Slaughterfall", as the commoners call them), people kept saying "Just put in a water elemental but limit it to the place you want it to be in." I didn't want that, though, I wanted a massive face in the water with longer reach and the ability to fully regenerate its hit points every round on its initiative unless something either froze it or obstructed the flow of its water. I couldn't find an exact match for that in the rules, so I *made* it, and then to balance how tough it was I tossed in an area where a Frost Dragon died thousands of years ago, letting Icicles grow that could be treated as wands with 1d6 charges that dealt 1d8 cold damage. The player characters decided they didn't want to carry around the frigid and slippery icicles, though, so they didn't put two and two together and just powered through the Slaughterfall fight.

Now, I definitely wouldn't recommend this for every table. All sorts of things could happen by introducing an elemental or a seemingly farmable batch of ice damage wands. But it worked for my home game because I knew more or less how the players would react to it (in fact, I expected the players to take *more* advantage of it than they did, and was incorrect there.)

Similarly, I've wanted a few other weird effects, like knights who are basically immune to magic. The "Cold Iron Knights" prestige class came up after that, and while no player has ever pursued it, I now have a few players who have started looking into ways to boost their effectiveness against counterspelling, or else know that magic won't always be the best Plan A if they see the Cold Iron Knights insignia.

And hey, if you have more fun in your games without homebrewing, awesome! I just like homebrewing for my game worlds because, well, it's fun for me and, I think, my players. I think the only note of disliking something I've had so far was when a quest was predicated on a Treant who turned everyone into a village into trees through a ritual that the player had never heard of before.

[Seerow]

I think the main point of homebrew flies in the face of the underlying assumption that you can do anything with what already exists in 3.5. There also seems to be an assumption that published rules actually go through any meaningful level of playtesting and are actually balanced rather than the best guess of somebody who was actually physically incapable of having as much experience with the system as we have today, by sheer virtue of how long it has been out today vs when the rule was written. Yes, there is a lot of bad homebrew, but there's also a lot of bad published material.

While yes, you can make most concepts work in some form or another, it will frequently not be easy, and usually come with a bunch of other baggage you don't care about. If 3.5 really encompassed literally everything you could want, we wouldn't see so much interest in stuff from DSP basically expanding on some of 3.5's more neglected systems. I mean what is Path of War but polished Tome of Battle homebrew (not saying this as a knock either, I love their work)? And yet, for a lot of character concepts people come here asking for help with the first question is if 3rd Party/Path of War allowed, because it fits what they are looking for best.

So for all new classes and feats, I feel like that's where the desire comes from. Filling in gaps conceptually that don't exist or are poorly fleshed out in the current game. For full classes I haven't personally invested much in that area, but obviously lots of people have. However I do regularly help players in my campaigns by providing feats for things they want to do that just don't fit. For example one of my players absolutely loves the multiclassing feats from the Complete X line, like Swift Hunter. So when I get asked "Can I do something similar for Monk/Duskblade?" or "Hey I'm wanting to play a Ninja Spirit Shaman" I'll say "Sure let's make something up"

The other reason for homebrewing, which I tend to invest a lot more time into, is a lot of times classes get made for a concept.... but they turn out to be completely garbage. Out of the thousands of prestige classes out there how many get taken with any regularity? How many base classes never see play past their first two levels? How many feats do you read and say "That sounds awesome!" before reality sets in that you would be an idiot to take it over power attack. Yes part of the fun of character building can be taking something subpar and forcing it to work, but not everybody is up to participating in Iron Chef. If someone wants to play a Duelist or a Soulknife, I am more likely to offer them homebrew variants to those classes than I am to recommend they take a 10 class build that comes online at level 15 that includes 1 or no levels of what they actually wanted to start with.


That said, this is all coming from the DM perspective. As a player, I would never approach a DM with homebrew suggestions unless they explicitly asked for it, and even then if it was on the table, I would generally expect them to provide what homebrew options are available than to bring anything from the forums or of my own creation to them. I feel like in some cases players do convince their DM to allow some intentionally broken piece of homebrew, and it leaves bad taste in the mouth of all players involved, giving homebrew as a whole a bad rap.


Edit: Forgot two other categories of homebrew:
1) Enemies. Homebrewed enemies are common in any game I run. While yes there are hundreds of monsters in the monster manual, there might not always be one that fits just right, and custom building a monster using the advancement rules and classes/templates can technically get you anything you want, but means any unique encounter is going to take hours to put together. By comparison, after playing for long enough, you can usually throw something together, be within a CR or so of your target, and have it done in a fraction of the time. I can't imagine trying to DM a long term campaign while manually creating everything by the books. It'd either get very boring for the players or overwhelming for me very quickly.

2) Houseruling. This is like homebrew, but instead of being a specific feat/item/class that's changed, it is a global change. Houserules I feel are fine as long as they are set at the start of the campaign and are made clear to everyone in advance. Think things like "Gain a feat every other level instead of every 3 levels" or "Hide and Move Silently are now stealth". Some people like them, some people hate them, personally when I run a game I have varying levels of house rules in place.

[Afgncaap5]

One other note in defense of those who enjoy Homebrew, one that's easy to overlook in the context of many things, I think: the DMG encourages it.

I don't think it ever actually uses the word homebrew, but the DMG (and, in fact, many other books) are spangled with fun new systems and ideas, followed by "Here's a method for making your own things that fit this concept!" Players (including the DMs, since they're a player too) are shown how to gauge the effectiveness and power of spells if they want to create their own, DMs are outright told that prestige classes are great ways to flesh out the flavor of their game world and to provide unique and memorable encounters for players and that they should design some if they get the chance, the Monster Manual gives suggestions for not just improving and reskinning pre-existing monsters but for designing all new ones from scratch (and introduces us to Templates for DMs who might prefer a halfway method of making monsters from semi-scratch), and that's just the core books. Other later books give DMs advice on designing their own pantheons to make the world's cosmology richer, Dungeonscape and DMG 2 both offer takes on traps that engage the party as an encounter rather than just springing once when a rogue fails a spot check, there are at least two books with advice on designing your own planes to fill out your cosmos a bit, and Unearthed Arcana literally has DMs at WotC citing alternate methods for playing that they've really enjoyed at their home tables.

Homebrewing is part of the game. It's fun for some people, so they'll play it! And just as there are many kinds of players and DMs, there are many kinds of tables to play at; some will embrace all Homebrew, some use it to add a little seasoning to their otherwise mostly-functional game world, and some will ignore it just as easily as an Eberron DM who hates psionics learns to ignore Sarlona and the Quori.

By the same token: I have *never* used retraining rules to give myself a new feat midway through a game, nor have I ever played a race with a level adjustment, though I came close once (and as such, I've also never used the rule for LA Buyoff.) I've technically used Traits and Flaws and such, but honestly I didn't like 'em so I've never asked if my character can use 'em again. These are all great things, and all part of the game, but, well... sometimes it's just more fun for some to go without, I guess.

[atemu1234]

Frankly, I go for the usual rebuttal for stuff like this - why not? It's fun, it's a good way to pass time, frankly there are a few glaring holes in the design of 3.5 that can be filled with homebrew. Hell, sometimes someone just wants to make a new monster. You don't get good boy points for not creating something original for your games, so if it's not to your taste, just let people do what they want.

[Luccan]

That's actually pretty smart.

As a long time advocate of bringing gaming questions and woes to the Playground, I'm embarrassed to admit that I honestly hadn't thought of cataloging Homebrews into a portfolio and cross-referencing it with the minds on the Homebrew forum. I've always isolated them into a campaign specific analysis and made a judgment therein.

It's weird how you get tunnel visioned, sometimes. I guess it's because I've had almost no need for the Homebrew forum in the past as a DM or as a player since I tend to run official systems.

Okay. :smallsmile:

I could be willing to consider this in future endeavors to run a campaign. I'm not saying it would ever be easy to score a win for Homebrew in my campaigns. But I can concede to the possibility of accepting a well tested, thoroughly scrutinized, group approved Race or Class concept that could improve the overall game experience for the party.

That seems plenty fair. Even if you don't, at least you have the answer to the thread title now, I hope.

[atemu1234]

I think the main point of homebrew flies in the face of the underlying assumption that you can do anything with what already exists in 3.5.

And where does that assumption come from? Because it certainly isn't true, and the basis of homebrewing is still built into the system. Hell, the d20 OGL is proof enough that the system is meant to be terminally incomplete - hence why, even now, people still make new content for it.

[Albions_Angel]

I can only share my reasons for homebrewing.

I do it because while I love the massive, expansive world of 3.5e, the powerlevels from book to book are all over the place, and while that doesnt matter in some games, it does in others.

My homebrew is mostly just houseruling.

I have a modified death mechanic which encourages healing in combat, because in low power games, healers can get bored. The mechanic also encourages final stands and battling to the end.
I have refluffed a lot of things, because they dont fit my world. Now sure, its just fluff, but its also homebrew.
I run a modified monk, truenamer and hexblade that make them fun and useful to play, but aimed at the power levels of my games (the monk is still underpowered, the truenamer still broken, but they perform just fine in my games, where fighters are damage dealers and wizards tend to be buffers and people that use magic missile).
I have expanded the spell lists of the duskblade, warmage and hexblade to account for updated books.
I have changed a few feats (Point Blank Shot isnt the start of the archery feat chain, combat expertise isnt the start of the styles feat chain, dodge is still dodge but is a flat +1 dodge bonus vs all opponents) to make it easier for players to get their builds online.

Thats why I homebrew. To twist the game, which is very good, to a point where everyone can pick anything and still feel good about it, in a much lower op setting than most people here would enjoy.

[GrayDeath]

Because in spite of the depth of things covered by the first-party books, creative people will always come up with an idea that the rules do not directly cover.

For a prime examples, search out efforts to replicate Zatoichi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatoichi) in D&D 3.5

I also once played a psionic variant of Jade Phoenix Mage that I greatly enjoyed.


Interestingly I brewed a Blind Warrior CLass (of agreebly much higher Power Level than Zatoichi, but thats to be expected) not too long ago, and faced responses ala youcan just make a guy with BLind FIght or Make a Prestige class with 3 levels out of it" and similar responses.

So yeah, I reiterate my earlier post.
^^

[King of Nowhere]

Interestingly I brewed a Blind Warrior CLass (of agreebly much higher Power Level than Zatoichi, but thats to be expected) not too long ago, and faced responses ala youcan just make a guy with BLind FIght or Make a Prestige class with 3 levels out of it" and similar responses.

So yeah, I reiterate my earlier post.
^^

yeah, those answers are most annoying, because no, blind fight is definitely NOT the same thing.

the problem with making a blind warrior (or a wizard in a wheelchair, an idea I had) is the pervasive presence of healing magic, that would make ridding those characters of blindness or paralysis very easy.

[Tvtyrant]

Because I don't privelege existing rules or optimization, so if a player wants to play a melee bard that doesn't suck it requires less effort to help them make one by homebrewing one then making a complicated build for it.

Edit: in more depth. RPGs all have to deal with the systemic fact that it is two seperate games. Build optimization and playing the actual game.

Build optimization like deck building in TCGs, neither makes you good at roleplaying or in game strategies but often determines character or deck power regardless. It requires tremendous rules memorization, the enjoyment of fiddly pieces and number crunching.

Playing D&D requires some basic rules memorization, the ability to communicate effectively and enjoying some combination of background elements and roleplay.

A player can be great at either game without being good at the other, homebrew helps to alleviate the requirement of being good at the former to play competently at the latter.

If your players enjoy build optimization you don't need homebrew, but often I get players who couldn't care less how their panther riding halfling archer gets that way, they are more interested in what their character can do and having a simplified list of options to do it with.

[Vaz]

Because I don't privelege existing rules or optimization, so if a player wants to play a melee bard that doesn't suck it requires less effort to help them make one by homebrewing one then making a complicated build for it.

Counterpoint; Bard/Crusader/Jade Phoenix Mage with Snowflake Wardance. What complicated build? If a player want to play a melee bard, and they're not capable of building their own, then you just need to build it for them, and tell them what to do.

[Tvtyrant]

Counterpoint; Bard/Crusader/Jade Phoenix Mage with Snowflake Wardance. What complicated build? If a player want to play a melee bard, and they're not capable of building their own, then you just need to build it for them, and tell them what to do.

Which is an equivalent option in result but requires someone to memorize many splatbooks to know it exists to build it in the first place. I enjoy build optimization and could easily do that, but that doesn't mean memorizing huge amounts of rules is inherently easier or better.

For instance you could just as easily take a Paladin, swap out Paladin spells for Bard equivalents and give him bardic music over lay on hands.

Or if you want tier 3 still, Bards can now cast spells 1/round as a swift action as long as they target the Bard.

[Scots Dragon]

Counterpoint; Bard/Crusader/Jade Phoenix Mage with Snowflake Wardance. What complicated build? If a player want to play a melee bard, and they're not capable of building their own, then you just need to build it for them, and tell them what to do.

What if you wanna do more bardic music rather than being a gish with bard levels? Would it not make more sense to thus homebrew to fill in the gap left open by 'melee bard' by way of a prestige class?

[Aetis]

Homebrewing lets you play the game for the first time again.

Except you know all the rules this time.

[GrayDeath]

yeah, those answers are most annoying, because no, blind fight is definitely NOT the same thing.

the problem with making a blind warrior (or a wizard in a wheelchair, an idea I had) is the pervasive presence of healing magic, that would make ridding those characters of blindness or paralysis very easy.


Easy solution: he loses all his nifty special abilities if he gains sight again.
So they`re even slightly martyric (fits the theme as well methinks).

But more to the general topic: Had another one:

You want to convert a Character from another System with the fluff AND crunch fitting.
Close to impossible with the regular classes once said character is something nongeneric.

[Vaz]

Which is an equivalent option in result but requires someone to memorize many splatbooks to know it exists to build it in the first place. I enjoy build optimization and could easily do that, but that doesn't mean memorizing huge amounts of rules is inherently easier or better.

For instance you could just as easily take a Paladin, swap out Paladin spells for Bard equivalents and give him bardic music over lay on hands.

Or if you want tier 3 still, Bards can now cast spells 1/round as a swift action as long as they target the Bard.

It requires no memorization of splat books. Once it's learned, it learned. Once you're aware of it, you're aware of it. As a DM, you can simply say "sweet, you want to play a Melee Bard, here's what we're going to do", and then you build their character for them at the level up. Part of the game is the book-knowledge aspect of it. If money is tight, do your research from people who have bought it, locate the information you need that way, and learn.

Most of my knowledge of the game has come from talking stuff out, and having builds presented to me in the guise of an online forum. If I wanted to play a Wind Knight, or Captain Constitution, I'd be able to look up the builds on how to go about building it. In a game, you can just create the build for the player, and talk it through with them. Alternatively, you can just go about creating homebrew, which makes it hard for someone to talk about the class.

"I want to do this"
"Okay here's how"
"But that's a lot of books"
"No, it's 4 pages photocopied from those books"
"But I want to do more than use my Bardic abilities than B in combat"
"You can"
"But I want to do it as well"
"You can"
"But I'm sharing resources"
"So?"

[Tvtyrant]

It requires no memorization of splat books. Once it's learned, it learned. Once you're aware of it, you're aware of it. As a DM, you can simply say "sweet, you want to play a Melee Bard, here's what we're going to do", and then you build their character for them at the level up. Part of the game is the book-knowledge aspect of it. If money is tight, do your research from people who have bought it, locate the information you need that way, and learn.

Most of my knowledge of the game has come from talking stuff out, and having builds presented to me in the guise of an online forum. If I wanted to play a Wind Knight, or Captain Constitution, I'd be able to look up the builds on how to go about building it. In a game, you can just create the build for the player, and talk it through with them. Alternatively, you can just go about creating homebrew, which makes it hard for someone to talk about the class.

"I want to do this"
"Okay here's how"
"But that's a lot of books"
"No, it's 4 pages photocopied from those books"
"But I want to do more than use my Bardic abilities than B in combat"
"You can"
"But I want to do it as well"
"You can"
"But I'm sharing resources"
"So?"

You haven't demonstrated the superiority of splat diving, just that a lot of people have spent time doing it and made that information available.

What actual advantage is there to looking up books you don't own on the internet and using those rules over modifying the base rules? It isn't simpler, or easier, or really even more balanced.

[Vaz]

You haven't demonstrated the superiority of splat diving, just that a lot of people have spent time doing it and made that information available.

What actual advantage is there to looking up books you don't own on the internet and using those rules over modifying the base rules? It isn't simpler, or easier, or really even more balanced.

Yeah, because Lightning Warrior is perfect example of simple, easy, and balanced. So Superior. What up, D&DWiki.

[Aipaca]

Yeah, because Lightning Warrior is perfect example of simple, easy, and balanced. So Superior. What up, D&DWiki.

Well there's the helpful comment of the day. No one has claimed homebrew is universally infallible, just that it can, if curated properly, allow you to achieve things within constraints that the ruleset would not allow.

[Scots Dragon]

Well there's the helpful comment of the day. No one has claimed homebrew is universally infallible, just that it can, if curated properly, allow you to achieve things within constraints that the ruleset would not allow.

Also the Lightning Warrior was created to be deliberately overpowered as a joke, so using it as an argument against homebrew is missing several points.

[Vaz]

Well there's the helpful comment of the day. No one has claimed homebrew is universally infallible, just that it can, if curated properly, allow you to achieve things within constraints that the ruleset would not allow.

But the ruleset does allow it? The ruleset allows a melee bard. The melee bard can do things. The complaint then changed to "book it takes more time", but it doesn't, because it's a matter of a quick google to find the build. Then you either buy the book you need, or find the rules elsewhere online until you can.

The complaint isn't that X concept is impossible, because it is possible. Literally. Pun-Pun can do anything, just limit yourself to that concept. The complaint then changed to "but it takes time and lots of books". No, it doesn't. It requires a 2 second google search (Melee Bard 3.5) which talks about the game mechanics and its rules, and you get to learn more about it. If you're worried over time it takes to learn and play, then you're playing the wrong game, and nothing more than "because I want to".

As long as we're clear that the answer to "Why homebrew" is "because I want to", rather than "there is X concept here which I can't fulfil", because let's be honest, out of the literally billions of combinations of base classes, ACF's, prestige classes, magic items, spells, feats, subsystems like Psionics etc, you can quite literally make any concept of character, even if it means ignoring some of your potential options that your character can do (being fair, like many characters ignore half of their weapon proficiencies once they have their preferred weapon).

Stating "homebrew" fills "gaps" is absolute nonsense, and saying "but it takes too much time" is nonsense when a game often takes months of time in game to play, and can be achieved by coming onto a site light GiantITP or Reddit and requesting build help. Or looking in the Iron Chef's. The exception to that is when you're not involved with the hobby outside of your weekly game night; along with all of your guys around the table also ignoring the concept of a wider hobby community. But that then becomes a moot point; if you're on the site, you're involved in the wider community, and saying that homebrewing saves time is nothing more than sticking fingers in your ears saying "lalala" I don't want to.

[Pleh]

he exception to that is when you're not involved with the hobby outside of your weekly game night; along with all of your guys around the table also ignoring the concept of a wider hobby community. But that then becomes a moot point; if you're on the site, you're involved in the wider community, and saying that homebrewing saves time is nothing more than sticking fingers in your ears saying "lalala" I don't want to.

No. I can homebrew much faster than talking with people around here to get a RAW solution.

Will the rapid homebrew be any good? Probably not, but it WILL be much faster than wading through the mass of content present in these communities and discerning from the depth and width of these conversations all the information necessary to duplicate the work shown here.

What I would consider better for your argument than Iron Chef would be handbooks. Now those little buggers can actually help you build approximate character concepts quickly and concisely without interrupting important bits to nitpick and argue RAW semantics at every turn. In fact, that's more or less their job. While some handbooks are a little dense with a wide scope of content (I'm looking at you, Eggynack), any handbook worth using is easy to navigate to the critical parts (such as the example builds section).

But homebrew doesn't need to take any time at all. I can homebrew right now a fighter that gets bonus feats at every level. Done.

This is why I was criticizing arguments earlier about balance, because people who enjoy 3.5 were never on board for real balance to begin with. Just because homebrew is broken doesn't mean it isn't fun to play with sometimes.

Sometimes it IS easier and faster to make a broken rule so you can just start playing the game rather than do a hew hours of homework to brush up that system mastery to do it right and have a slightly more balanced result.

[PersonMan]

[...]

out of the literally billions of combinations of base classes, ACF's, prestige classes, magic items, spells, feats, subsystems like Psionics etc, you can quite literally make any concept of character, even if it means ignoring some of your potential options that your character can do (being fair, like many characters ignore half of their weapon proficiencies once they have their preferred weapon).

Stating "homebrew" fills "gaps" is absolute nonsense [...]

Unless you consider "mechanical representation of X that neither excludes abilities it should have or includes those it should not have" a gap. Yes, in theory you can just ignore mechanical abilities your character has, but it certainly isn't elegant - and elegance is something that at least some people value. If "it works, if you ignore parts of it" just isn't an acceptable solution, then gaps open.

EDIT: There's also the factor of feel. How it feels to play something can be important, and the feel of a spellcaster (or even initiator) can be very different from the desired way of play for someone whose concept is one of a warrior.

[King of Nowhere]

But the ruleset does allow it? The ruleset allows a melee bard. The melee bard can do things. The complaint then changed to "book it takes more time", but it doesn't, because it's a matter of a quick google to find the build. Then you either buy the book you need, or find the rules elsewhere online until you can.

The complaint isn't that X concept is impossible, because it is possible. Literally. Pun-Pun can do anything, just limit yourself to that concept. The complaint then changed to "but it takes time and lots of books". No, it doesn't. It requires a 2 second google search (Melee Bard 3.5) which talks about the game mechanics and its rules, and you get to learn more about it.

Nah, not really. I have asked for builds here, and the more splat-intensive arehard to understand. I should go look a dozen classes I don't know about, a dozen subrules I don't know about, and their interaction. And I'm likely to have forgotten half of it the next time they come around.



As long as we're clear that the answer to "Why homebrew" is "because I want to", rather than "there is X concept here which I can't fulfil", because let's be honest, out of the literally billions of combinations of base classes, ACF's, prestige classes, magic items, spells, feats, subsystems like Psionics etc, you can quite literally make any concept of character, even if it means ignoring some of your potential options that your character can do
Examples of character concept you CANNOT make with RAW - at least not to my best knowledge:

The specialized expert (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?532254-An-NPC-class-to-make-badass-npcs-without-overshadowing-the-pcs-specialized-expert&highlight=specialized+expert), an NPC class that gives huge boosts to a single skill check, meant for specialists that the party has to hire to fulfill a specific task. The purpose of the class is to give a higher boost to a single skill check than any pc class can get by just spending skill points and feats. Yes, you can do it with an expert and skill focus, but no, it's not the same. If you get an expert and give it skill focus and the other relevant feat for +2, then any rogue or fighter or whatever can take the same feats and get the same bonus. The fact that pc classes generally won't spend feats to boosts skills is neither here nor there. The thing is that a base class with class skills specifically dedicated to boosting a single skill is missing.

The sumo (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545630-the-sumo-(3-5-prc)&highlight=sumo), a prestige class that gives some brawling boosts and a lot of tanking capacity at the expence of mobility. there are a lot of ways to make similar builds, but no, they are not the same. no option that I know gives you a permanent boost to STR and COS but a penalty to DEX. No option that I know permanently reduces your move speed. And no option that I know gives a lot of bonus hp based on your CON score. yes, there are many ways to get bonus hp, but they tend to make CON redundant. You can do a lot of similar things, but they will not be the same.

Really, if you say that anything can be built by raw, you are saying that those 50 books contain the total sum of human imagination. That's absolutely ridiculous. It reminds me of when at the beginning of 1900 Prussia wanted to close the patent office because they thought everything useful had already been invented.
yes, whatever you want to do, you can do something similar with RAW. But similar is not the same, and some people won't be satisfied. Consider if you went to the movie theater to watch the avengers, and paid the tiket and sit down, and they would show you X-men instead. And you'll go to complain to the director, who will dismissively say "the avengers are superheroes, X-men are also superheroes, you wanted to look superheroes so you shuld be satisfied". I doubt you'll be ok with it, because you wanted a specific thing, not something similar.
And since you have the tools to make exactly what you want, why not use them?

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah, because Lightning Warrior is perfect example of simple, easy, and balanced. So Superior. What up, D&DWiki.

More balanced then Beholder Mage, so yes RAW is just as unbalanced.

[Hecuba]

More balanced then Beholder Mage, so yes RAW is just as unbalanced.

The issue with that is that the relative amounts are different. Yes, there are examples where 1st party is just as (or, as you point out, more) extreme than home-brew. And, indeed, I would say that the best homebrew is generally as good as or better than the best 1st party materials.

But - if you are jumping into homebrew by looking at an uncurated internet repository - the worst of it is far more common. It's gotten better in some ways - D&D Wiki has cleaned up a bit, and the things that are thrown together on a whim and never reviewed or play-tested have generally started getting the removal flag added eventually. In other ways, its gotten worse - the playground no longer has a centrally curated list, and hasn't since 2009.

It gets easier to spot and discard the trash with practice, but it can certainly be a concern if you're just making your first jump into the world of homebrew.

[Nifft]

The issue with that is that the relative amounts are different. Yes, there are examples where 1st party is just as (or, as you point out, more) extreme than home-brew. And, indeed, I would say that the best homebrew is generally as good as or better than the best 1st party materials.

But - if you are jumping into homebrew by looking at an uncurated internet repository - the worst of it is far more common. It's gotten better in some ways - D&D Wiki has cleaned up a bit, and the things that are thrown together on a whim and never reviewed or play-tested have generally started getting the removal flag added eventually. In other ways, its gotten worse - the playground no longer has a centrally curated list, and hasn't since 2009.

It gets easier to spot and discard the trash with practice, but it can certainly be a concern if you're just making your first jump into the world of homebrew.

That's like saying someone prolific on Twitter makes terrible posts, therefore you should never bother posting your own arguments on GitP.

The relative volume of bad content on Twitter is very high. There are extreme examples (which I shall not name), even more extremely bad than the argument you're making. Similarly, there's a lot of bad homebrew content on dndwiki, which I will never read nor allow and none of my players have ever tried to bring up.


So...

Do you feel that the sheer volume of bad content on Twitter means you should never post on GitP?

Or will you agree that bad homebrew on some random wiki that I will never read is irrelevant to my ability as a DM to write & curate good homebrew for my own game?

[Quertus]

The complaint isn't that X concept is impossible, because it is possible. Literally. Pun-Pun can do anything, just limit yourself to that concept.

As long as we're clear that the answer to "Why homebrew" is "because I want to", rather than "there is X concept here which I can't fulfil",

Stating "homebrew" fills "gaps" is absolute nonsense, and saying "but it takes too much time" is nonsense when a game often takes months of time in game to play, and can be achieved by coming onto a site light GiantITP or Reddit and requesting build help. Or looking in the Iron Chef's. The exception to that is when you're not involved with the hobby outside of your weekly game night; along with all of your guys around the table also ignoring the concept of a wider hobby community. But that then becomes a moot point; if you're on the site, you're involved in the wider community, and saying that homebrewing saves time is nothing more than sticking fingers in your ears saying "lalala" I don't want to.

Would you really allow someone to play pun-pun at your table just because GitP was unable to provide them a satisfactory build?

And I can write a "back of the napkin" homebrew faster than I can query GitP for a build, even discounting response time.

Balancing either to the table is another matter.


Unless you consider "mechanical representation of X that neither excludes abilities it should have or includes those it should not have" a gap. Yes, in theory you can just ignore mechanical abilities your character has, but it certainly isn't elegant - and elegance is something that at least some people value. If "it works, if you ignore parts of it" just isn't an acceptable solution, then gaps open.

EDIT: There's also the factor of feel. How it feels to play something can be important, and the feel of a spellcaster (or even initiator) can be very different from the desired way of play for someone whose concept is one of a warrior.

A Street Samurai in Shadowrun feels fast in a way unlike any other character I've ever played in any system. I get to go first, then second, then third, then other characters start having turns? Then I take my last turn... and we start all over again? There's a feel to that - a feel that no other system has.

I can get something close by having allies use White Raven Tactics on me, but, by all means Playground, show me the build that has this feel, on a muggle, without relying on allies. Someone who is just this fast, all by themselves, as a Shadowrun Street Samurai.

[Vaz]

More balanced then Beholder Mage, so yes RAW is just as unbalanced.

Excellent. Let me know how you become a Beholder Mage, then.

@Quertus. Why not? As a DM I'm able to shut down things, and if someone is going to break my game, they don't need PunPun to do it. That person can go and swivel, however. If someone wants to play a particular character, then they absolutely can. If someone wants to play a FFX Dragoon Lancer, then they can. If that means they take a Cleric, and have access to certain spells, but to keep hold of their characters identity, they restrict themselves from using them, that is up to them. If they want to play a character, they can and are. I'm not the one forcing them to create a Wish economy simply because they can call a Genie.

As for Street Samurai, I'm not sure of the ststs, but that sounds like the Casual Disconcern for the Action enconomy. Got a link to the build you use for it? Can replicate those abilities if I know more about them.

@Nifft: by the time you are that invested in knowing homebrew, you are also going to know a great number of Classes. Homebrew remains something that you do if you don't have good system knowledge/mastery, or do for fun. As a conceptual level, or any other 'gap filling' nonesense, you're simply looking through rose tinted specs.

[Caelestion]

@Nifft: by the time you are that invested in knowing homebrew, you are also going to know a great number of Classes. Homebrew remains something that you do if you don't have good system knowledge/mastery, or do for fun. As a conceptual level, or any other 'gap filling' nonesense, you're simply looking through rose tinted specs.

Stop having fun, folks!! :smallfurious:

[Nifft]

@Nifft: by the time you are that invested in knowing homebrew, you are also going to know a great number of Classes. Homebrew remains something that you do if you don't have good system knowledge/mastery, or do for fun. As a conceptual level, or any other 'gap filling' nonesense, you're simply looking through rose tinted specs. Making good homebrew requires having good system knowledge & mastery, so uh...

"Invested in knowing homebrew"?
Rose-tinted specs?
Man, what?

It sounds like you think there's some kind of counter-argument hiding in your gibberish. Would you mind typing out whatever argument you think you're making?



Let me lay out what's going to happen with respect to system mastery / DM competence / etc.

If you're bad at D&D:

- Without Homebrew, your game is unpredictable. Your players will either pick mutually-balanced options, or they won't, and you'll have no idea which. You'll either end up with encounters which are a good fit for the abilities of the PCs, or you won't, and you will have no corrective control over what you get.

- With Homebrew, your game is unpredictable. Your player will either pick mutually-balanced options, or they won't, and you'll have no idea which. You'll either end up with encounters which are a good fit for the abilities of the PCs, or you won't, and you will have no corrective control over what you get.

There's no difference in outcomes. If you are bad at D&D, then removing Homebrew won't help. Your game is going to be largely the result of random chance.


If we're good at D&D:

- Without Homebrew, the game is transparent and responds well to correction. Our players pick from approved options which are mutually balanced. The PCs aren't made from a random selection of published content, but rather from a sub-set of all options -- the mutually balanced subset, for example all of them might be T3-T4, or all of them might be T1-T2. The DM has a solid grasp on the expected capabilities of the PCs, and gives them encounters which challenge them, and to which all PCs can contribute meaningfully.

- With Homebrew, the game is transparent and responds well to correction. Our players pick from approved options which are mutually balanced. The PCs aren't made from a random selection of web-wiki content, but rather from a sub-set of published options and a (probably small) number of custom content, in my case it's stuff I've personally written and tied into the setting -- which constitutes a mutually balanced subset, for example all of them might be T3-T4, or all of them might be T1-T2. The DM has a solid grasp on the expected capabilities of the PCs, and gives them encounters which challenge them, and to which all PCs can contribute meaningfully.


Again, there's no difference in outcomes.

Homebrew makes my games better, and that's because we're good at D&D.

If you're bad at D&D, homebrew won't help.

[P.F.]

Homebrew remains something that you do if you don't have good system knowledge/mastery, or do for fun. As a conceptual level, or any other 'gap filling' nonesense, you're simply looking through rose tinted specs.

It's not an either/or proposition: this sword cuts both ways.


Splat-diving is simply something that you do if you don't have good homebrewing /collaborative development skills, or do for fun. If you consider "can be refluffed as resembling the concept you want if you play and works adequately at 11th-16th level" as not having any gaps, you're perhaps reading rose-tinted splatbooks.

In all seriousness, though, homebrew classes rarely do anything which cannot, in some way, be approximated throug combining race, classes, templates, and optional rules.

What homebrew offers, when done well, is an even power curve with a good mix of incremental and qualitative class features that fulfill a particular character concept from levels 1-20 and beyond.

Often, evaluating other groups' homebrew is no more challenging than evaluating third-party published matetial, or even obscure first-party material. The quality varies widely. Absent prior knowledge of the warning signs, for example, pre-ascendency Pun-Pun looks like a fairly innocuous, bog-standard magic-user.

Yes, developing a class that has these attributes is hard. Often it is easier to crowbar an existing ruleset into working at the few levels the game is likely to be played at, especially if you have encyclopedic knowledge of obscure sources. But for those of us who enjoy the process, homebrew offers the double reward of playing a character with a unique and functional set of abilities, and the satisfaction of having created something.

[Vaz]

I can see this forum hasn't improved any :)

Nowhere have I said that you're not allowed to have fun, nowhere have I said that you're not allowed to homebrew. However to the question of 'why homebrew', the answers of 'there is a gap in the mechanics' is singularly false: you either aren't aware that there is a mechanic to support your concept, or simply want to homebrew. And this is okay. **** I homebrew a lot.

But I do it because I want to. Not because my concept can't be fulfilled well enough.

Stop deluding yourselves.

[Nifft]

I can see this forum hasn't improved any :)

Nowhere have I said that you're not allowed to have fun, nowhere have I said that you're not allowed to homebrew. However to the question of 'why homebrew', the answers of 'there is a gap in the mechanics' is singularly false: you either aren't aware that there is a mechanic to support your concept, or simply want to homebrew. And this is okay. **** I homebrew a lot.

But I do it because I want to. Not because my concept can't be fulfilled well enough.

Stop deluding yourselves.

You're rather impolite for someone who is factually incorrect.

[Vaz]

You're rather impolite for someone who is factually incorrect.

I'm rather impolite regardless of my correctness.

Doesn't change the fact I'm actually correct though, but hey.

[Caelestion]

I can see this forum hasn't improved any :)

Nowhere have I said that you're not allowed to have fun, nowhere have I said that you're not allowed to homebrew. However to the question of 'why homebrew', the answers of 'there is a gap in the mechanics' is singularly false: you either aren't aware that there is a mechanic to support your concept, or simply want to homebrew. And this is okay. **** I homebrew a lot.

But I do it because I want to. Not because my concept can't be fulfilled well enough.

Stop deluding yourselves.

Then, presumably, you are arguing for argument's sake and thus you are part of the same problem to which you refer.

[Vaz]

Then, presumably, you are arguing for argument's sake and thus you are part of the same problem to which you refer.
What problem am I referring to?

I've never said that there's a problem. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh, wait, Nifft says I'm rude. Er quick think. ****. There.

[Nifft]

I'm rather impolite regardless of my correctness.

Doesn't change the fact I'm actually correct though, but hey. Correct about what?

You've offered no coherent argument, just immature provocations like "stop deluding yourself".

The rest of us aren't deluded; therefore, you're factually incorrect. You're also a bit off topic.


What problem am I referring to?

I've never said that there's a problem. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh, wait, Nifft says I'm rude. Er quick think. ****. There.

Ah, I see.

You have no position, and no coherent argument.

That does explain why you're just randomly insulting the forum, rather than trying to discuss the topic.

Okay, then I guess we can move on.

[Hecuba]

So...

Do you feel that the sheer volume of bad content on Twitter means you should never post on GitP?

Or will you agree that bad homebrew on some random wiki that I will never read is irrelevant to my ability as a DM to write & curate good homebrew for my own game?

So, first, that's a false equivalence: I would not agree to the former, regardless of my position on the later.
If I were to make a parallel conclusion about the volume of bad content on Twitter, the conclusion would be:
It is important to assess the quality of your sources of information.
The volume of questionable content on Twitter can complicate that process for information gained from Twitter.
The editorial standards of more traditional outlets like the Times - while imperfect - can make that assessment easier.
Twitter and other social media platforms can still be important because they can provide information that the Times does not.
If you have not familiarized yourself with how to assess Twitter and similar platforms as an information source, you should exercise caution and skepticism until you have.

Funny: the actual parallel works when you don't tack on flawed rhetoric that eliminates all trace of nuance.



Second, D&DWiki is not probably not best characterized as "some random wiki" for many tables. While it has had quality issues for long stretches, it is nonetheless one of the most recognizable home-brew repositories on the internet. If we are even remotely discussing players bringing someone else's homebrew they found on the internet to a table, then it's a thing that should be considered - because it will affect many tables.



Finally, my prior comment has nothing to do with your personal ability - or anyone else's - to write their own homebrew. And my point was about the effort needed to curate it, particularly when players come to you with homebrew from non-vetted sources. If no-one you play with ever brings any homebrew they didn't write themselves, then yes - its effectively a non-issue for you.

If they do, but no-one you play with ever brings you questionable homebrew from less that stellar sources, then you're implicitly saying that your table has already developed a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Effectively, you and/or the people you play with developed the exact expertise that I referred to. That doesn't make it a non-issue: it makes it a solved issue, for you.

But a solved issue for you is not a solved issue for everyone. And if a table has not used homebrew before and has not developed that curatorial expertise, the starting premise of "much, if not most, of what you find online won't be very good" isn't a trivial concern.

[Vaz]

Stop deluding yourself that your fulfilling any gap in what 3.5 published content provides wirh homebrew.

If we want to get into the level of 'randomly insulting', I simply pointed out that 3.5 provided you with all the tools with published content, which you either needed a lack of knowledge to be unaware of to be incapable of fulfilling without homebrew. At the extreme end of the scale, there's PunPun who can give you everything you could want to fulfil your concept, even if it's godhood and Epic Level spellcasting from 1st level. The assertation that there is a gap in 3.5 mechanics is demonstrably false. So you are wrong. For me to be wrong, my assertation has to be wrong, except that my assertation is correct: there is literally no gap in 3.5 left unfulfilled, unless your creativity or lack of knowledge of the system prevents you from utilizing them.

So the assertation that homebrewing is a result of either a desire to do so, or not being aware of an option already present is entirely correct.

Prove me wrong.

[Nifft]

So, first, that's a false equivalence: I would not agree to the former, regardless of my position on the later.
(snip)
Funny: the actual parallel works when you don't tack on flawed rhetoric that eliminates all trace of nuance.
The actual parallel works great, yes.

Content that's irrelevant to this thread is irrelevant even if the content is terrible.
Content that's irrelevant to my game is irrelevant even if the content is terrible.

I must curate arguments that I incorporate into my posts, no matter the source.
I must curate content that I incorporate into my game, no matter the source.

Garbage on Twitter is irrelevant to GitP threads.
Garbage on D&Dwiki is irrelevant to real games.

Is that copacetic with your understanding?



Second, D&DWiki is not probably not best characterized as "some random wiki" for many tables. While it has had quality issues for long stretches, it is nonetheless one of the most recognizable home-brew repositories on the internet. If we are even remotely discussing players bringing someone else's homebrew they found on the internet to a table, then it's a thing that should be considered - because it will affect many tables. I've never seen anyone actually using D&Dwiki in a real game.

Where do you get the idea that "many tables" actually use that midden heap, and do so uncritically?



Finally, my prior comment has nothing to do with your personal ability - or anyone else's - to write their own homebrew. And my point was about the effort needed to curate it, particularly when players come to you with homebrew from non-vetted sources. If no-one you play with ever brings any homebrew they didn't write themselves, then yes - its effectively a non-issue for you.

If they do, but no-one you play with ever brings you questionable homebrew from less that stellar sources, then you're implicitly saying that your table has already developed a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Effectively, you and/or the people you play with developed the exact expertise that I referred to. That doesn't make it a non-issue: it makes it a solved issue, for you.

No, it's more than that.

See, the exact same issue must be solved for published content.

I need the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff for homebrew, and I need that exact same ability for published content.

There is no issue that must be solved for homebrew which did not already exist before homebrew was introduced. There is no "homebrew" issue. There's just the issues of power & quality, both of which also apply to homebrew.

If you can't distinguish good from bad, you're shafted with or without homebrew.

[Caelestion]

So the assertation that homebrewing is a result of either a desire to do so, or not being aware of an option already present is entirely correct.

Prove me wrong.

Even if those are the only options (and the first is extremely nebulous), that still doesn't answer why people homebrew, beyond the amazingly facile ("because I want to"). This rhetorical flourish of yours doesn't actually help answer the thread title.

[Nifft]

Stop deluding yourself that your fulfilling any gap in what 3.5 published content provides wirh homebrew.

If we want to get into the level of 'randomly insulting', I simply pointed out that 3.5 provided you with all the tools with published content, which you either needed a lack of knowledge to be unaware of to be incapable of fulfilling without homebrew. At the extreme end of the scale, there's PunPun who can give you everything you could want to fulfil your concept, even if it's godhood and Epic Level spellcasting from 1st level. The assertation that there is a gap in 3.5 mechanics is demonstrably false. So you are wrong. For me to be wrong, my assertation has to be wrong, except that my assertation is correct: there is literally no gap in 3.5 left unfulfilled, unless your creativity or lack of knowledge of the system prevents you from utilizing them.

So the assertation that homebrewing is a result of either a desire to do so, or not being aware of an option already present is entirely correct.

Prove me wrong.

There's a thread right now where you've already proved yourself wrong: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?552283-Necromantic-Monk-how-to-be-viable

You were unable to provide a solution to that guy's request.

Q.E.D., are you done?

[Vaz]

There's a thread right now where you've already proved yourself wrong: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?552283-Necromantic-Monk-how-to-be-viable

You were unable to provide a solution to that guy's request.

Q.E.D., are you done?

Planar Touchstone: Competition at the least. And/Or Arcane Disciple.

Sorry can't hear you over the sound of how right i am

[Nifft]

Planar Touchstone: Competition at the least. And/Or Arcane Disciple.

Sorry can't hear you over the sound of how right i am

Solve that guy's problem to his satisfaction -- not mine -- and you'll be 0.0001% less wrong than you currently are.

Your current wrongness: 100% wrong.

[Quertus]

I'm rather impolite regardless of my correctness.

Way to own it! Welcome to the team!


@Quertus. Why not? As a DM I'm able to shut down things, and if someone is going to break my game, they don't need PunPun to do it. That person can go and swivel, however. If someone wants to play a particular character, then they absolutely can. If someone wants to play a FFX Dragoon Lancer, then they can. If that means they take a Cleric, and have access to certain spells, but to keep hold of their characters identity, they restrict themselves from using them, that is up to them. If they want to play a character, they can and are. I'm not the one forcing them to create a Wish economy simply because they can call a Genie.

As for Street Samurai, I'm not sure of the ststs, but that sounds like the Casual Disconcern for the Action enconomy. Got a link to the build you use for it? Can replicate those abilities if I know more about them.


However to the question of 'why homebrew', the answers of 'there is a gap in the mechanics' is singularly false:


At the extreme end of the scale, there's PunPun who can give you everything you could want to fulfil your concept,

Prove me wrong.


There's a thread right now where you've already proved yourself wrong: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?552283-Necromantic-Monk-how-to-be-viable

You were unable to provide a solution to that guy's request.

Q.E.D., are you done?

Ok, so, yes, via PunPun, anything is kinda possible. But, given the number of people who keep objecting to me piloting a deity piloting my statistically appropriate characters rather than me piloting them directly, I can't imagine people wouldn't object to me running PunPun. So, perhaps, one should argue that homebrew allows the concept you desire to be played at an actual table - or, if you would allow players to play PunPun, then the more relevant "at the tables where these players are playing".

Besides, a character is, to me, more than just stats - they're history and personality. I'm not terribly interested in having my every background be, "first, I obtained omnipotence; then, I limited myself to the being you see before you". That's what I already do when I don't have time to come up with a good personality! :smallwink: I'd prefer to be able to have a good personality and good background to match my good stat block whenever possible.

As to the Street Samurai... Shadowrun is based off the enforced "everyone gets a turn to shine" model of forcing most of the party to sit out and twiddle their thumbs most of the game. Only the Mage can access astral space, only the hacker can access the net; only the driver gets to play their game. They're a bit subtle about it in combat, pretending that everyone can contribute, but, really, it's the Street Samurai's solo game, where he gets to take far more actions than anyone else, and take them first. The "Fighter" class in Shadowrun gets to be awesome, and feel awesome fast, in a way that I've never seen in any other system.

So, my question was, short of PunPun, is there a way for a character to emulate the effects of the Street Samurai / of having White Raven Tactics used on them repeatedly, every turn, to allow them to take several turns every turn? Something that there's any chance I might actually get to play at an actual table?

Because, with homebrew, the answer is "yes".

[Nifft]

Ok, so, yes, via PunPun, anything is kinda possible. Just add: "in a T3 game."

Pun-Pun fails to be balanced at any practical level.

If being balanced with the rest of the party is a requirement -- and it should be -- then Pun-Pun is naturally excluded from most games.

[Quertus]

Just add: "in a T3 game."

Pun-Pun fails to be balanced at any practical level.

If being balanced with the rest of the party is a requirement -- and it should be -- then Pun-Pun is naturally excluded from most games.

Oh, sure. But, "first, I was PunPun, then I gave myself these abilities. Now, I only have these abilities" as a way to play any possible balanced concept you can imagine?

[Nifft]

Oh, sure. But, "first, I was PunPun, then I gave myself these abilities. Now, I only have these abilities" as a way to play any possible balanced concept you can imagine?

So basically, by uncritical inclusion of all published rules, a Kobold PC is already allowed to make his or her own arbitrary homebrew.

Is that an accurate summation?

[Vaz]

Oh, sure. But, "first, I was PunPun, then I gave myself these abilities. Now, I only have these abilities" as a way to play any possible balanced concept you can imagine?

Yeah, why should a guy who wants to play a concept play a concept? Why should a Greatsword Fighter use a Halberd?

Honestly, how dare a player keep to their concept?

[King of Nowhere]

by the time you are that invested in knowing homebrew, you are also going to know a great number of Classes.

Again, wrong. I can homebrew rather well, but I don't know many classes. Why? because I never wantd to bother rifling through all those splatbooks. And even after I play 10 more years, it is likely I still will not know many classes, even though my homebrew skill will have increased.


The assertation that there is a gap in 3.5 mechanics is demonstrably false. So you are wrong. For me to be wrong, my assertation has to be wrong, except that my assertation is correct: there is literally no gap in 3.5 left unfulfilled, unless your creativity or lack of knowledge of the system prevents you from utilizing them.

So the assertation that homebrewing is a result of either a desire to do so, or not being aware of an option already present is entirely correct.

Prove me wrong.

I did prove you wrong, but you completely discounted my post. And the only reason you think you can be correct is that you're moving the goalpost. You take "something vaguely similar" for the desired thing.

[Caelestion]

Sorry can't hear you over the sound of how right i am

Who needs to put words in your mouth when you shoot yourself in the foot like that?

[PersonMan]

Prove me wrong.

Don't you generally have to prove yourself right first? Even if you don't care about being impolite, doesn't it make sense that, when talking to people who are apparently objectively wrong, you at least address points instead of ignoring them and then claiming victory?

[Vaz]

Don't you generally have to prove yourself right first? Even if you don't care about being impolite, doesn't it make sense that, when talking to people who are apparently objectively wrong, you at least address points instead of ignoring them and then claiming victory?

I have. What points have I not proved incorrect?

[Quertus]

Yeah, why should a guy who wants to play a concept play a concept? Why should a Greatsword Fighter use a Halberd?

Honestly, how dare a player keep to their concept?

Wait, this text isn't blue? :smallconfused:


So basically, by uncritical inclusion of all published rules, a Kobold PC is already allowed to make his or her own arbitrary homebrew.

Is that an accurate summation?


I have. What points have I not proved incorrect?

So, yeah. It's my understanding that Vaz is asserting just that. That PunPun allows any character concept, therefore homebrew is unnecessary.

My counter was that homebrew was much more likely to be accepted at the tables I'm familiar with, thus it still has concrete value, even if, in the abstract, it is superfluous next to mighty PunPun.

[JNAProductions]

Because it's fun, and 3.5, while it has GOBSMACKS of content, doesn't have everything. Or, even if it has something, it's not elegant, only works in a specific level range, has a bunch of superfluous abilities that you'd have to ignore, or any combination of those and other issues.

[atemu1234]

Because it's fun, and 3.5, while it has GOBSMACKS of content, doesn't have everything. Or, even if it has something, it's not elegant, only works in a specific level range, has a bunch of superfluous abilities that you'd have to ignore, or any combination of those and other issues.

Yeah. Certain things are already built into the system - if I wanted to play Kenshin Himura, I'd just go for a swordsage and call it a day. But there are plenty of concepts that don't work nearly so elegantly in the sphere of D&D. Homebrew is easier than 'make a wizard, cheese it into three prestige classes and slap the label on it'.

[Deadline]

My counter was that homebrew was much more likely to be accepted at the tables I'm familiar with, thus it still has concrete value, even if, in the abstract, it is superfluous next to mighty PunPun.

I'd also argue that Homebrew can quite easily do some concepts far better (both in terms of usefulness and balance) than anything in the official material.

[atemu1234]

Also, what's this weird optimization-nihilism thing going on? "It doesn't matter what you do, for Pun-Pun can do it all better than you and thus you are superfluous". I can't help but read half the stuff like that in some slow, german-accented monotone.

[Knaight]

There's a level of overly boolean thinking going on in the thread as well. Concepts don't boil down to represented or not-represented. Representation isn't a check box of absent or present, there's a question of quality to it, with how well the mechanics represent a concept.

3.5 can get basically everything to some level, and if your standards are low enough you can take that minimal representation, claim that it lets 3.5 represent everything, and then claim that this makes homebrew (and conveniently enough other systems entirely) completely useless. Meanwhile at a higher level of quality this breaks down entirely.

[Vaz]

Wait, this text isn't blue? :smallconfused:





So, yeah. It's my understanding that Vaz is asserting just that. That PunPun allows any character concept, therefore homebrew is unnecessary.

My counter was that homebrew was much more likely to be accepted at the tables I'm familiar with, thus it still has concrete value, even if, in the abstract, it is superfluous next to mighty PunPun.

So, you'ee unwilling to take any ability, and only limit yourself to certain effects, but will create a class that can take any ability, but can create any effect?

Just so we're clear, 3.5 allows you to fulfil any concept, you are just not willing to fulfil that concept using the tools provided?

I mean, that's cool. You're allowed. The question is, why? One of the answer given was that 3.5 doesn't allow that. Counterpoint is that it does, and verifiably does so. Ergo, I am correct, but being called that it doesn't.

The point remains that there have been 2 examples that have been given a character cannot do a certain thing: 1, be a Necromancer Monk with low BAB, and 2, be a Street Samurai, which I have stated is a distinct possibility thanks to the 'Casual disconcern' fromt he Psionic Handbook.

Nobody it is saying it's not fun, i do so myaelf. But saying the X isn't represented is verifiably wrong.

[King of Nowhere]

So, you'ee unwilling to take any ability, and only limit yourself to certain effects, but will create a class that can take any ability, but can create any effect?


So you are saying that becoming an omnipotent being who decides to curtail his own powers permanently to oonly get a specific subset is better than getting that specific subset from the beginning? :smallconfused:
I wonder how you can refluff that.

[Hecuba]

The actual parallel works great, yes.

Content that's irrelevant to this thread is irrelevant even if the content is terrible.
Content that's irrelevant to my game is irrelevant even if the content is terrible.

I must curate arguments that I incorporate into my posts, no matter the source.
I must curate content that I incorporate into my game, no matter the source.

Garbage on Twitter is irrelevant to GitP threads.
Garbage on D&Dwiki is irrelevant to real games.

Is that copacetic with your understanding?
Presuming you are working with a source at all, the curation is the point I was making.



I've never seen anyone actually using D&Dwiki in a real game.

Where do you get the idea that "many tables" actually use that midden heap, and do so uncritically?

I see novice players bring it into games run at my shop at least once every two weeks. Until they improved labeling, some were ostensibly unaware it was home-brew.
There have been 10 threads on this forum about it. There is generally about 1 thread a quarter about it on the D&D Reddit.
Consider also it's placement on search results for D&D homebrew.

This is, sadly, all anecdotal - but, alas, there is little in the way of cross-sectional studies of homebrew usage.

Additionally, I am not positing that "many tables" use it, much less uncritically. I'm positing that many tables need to be aware of it and take it into consideration. Even if that consideration is a blanket ban on content from there, you need to be aware of it.
The alternative would be to - should another player at your table print out a stack of homebrew they "found online" and ask for your opinion because they thought it was cool - evaluate each one as though it came from a better curated source.


No, it's more than that.

See, the exact same issue must be solved for published content.

I need the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff for homebrew, and I need that exact same ability for published content.

There is no issue that must be solved for homebrew which did not already exist before homebrew was introduced. There is no "homebrew" issue. There's just the issues of power & quality, both of which also apply to homebrew.

If you can't distinguish good from bad, you're shafted with or without homebrew.

I agree that curation is an issue for both homebrew and first party. I disagree that it is the exact same issue. There are several important differences, and all of them are matters of differences in degree:
The corpus of 3.5 official material is no longer expanding: curation has thus become a relatively static matter if you have already familiarized yourself with the corpus. In contrast, while it has slowed, 3.5 homebrew is still expanding.
Curation for official content can be more readily outsourced to existing online guidance, which more commonly exists for official content than for homebrew. You will always get better results if you understand the details well enough to make the judgment yourself, but where someone does need to outsource such judgments (and some tables do), you can do so more readily and reliably for official content.

Importantly, this outsourceing is sufficeient for the needs of some tables. Adding homebrew can change that balance: you can, after all, play a bare-bones 3.5 game with less system mastery than is requried to evaluate homebrew well.

The quality floor is lower, and frequency matters. This is why shortcuts like "nothing from DnDWiki" exist.

[Quarian Rex]

Homebrew remains something that you do if you don't have good system knowledge/mastery


Good homebrew requires superior system knowledge/mastery, both to fill a missing niche in core and to create something that is balanced within the system. Coming up with new, balanced mechanics to fulfill a roll is not something that someone new to the hobby is generally capable of.



there is literally no gap in 3.5 left unfulfilled, unless your creativity or lack of knowledge of the system prevents you from utilizing them.

So the assertation that homebrewing is a result of either a desire to do so, or not being aware of an option already present is entirely correct.

Prove me wrong.


It is statements like this that shows how little you understand about this game or even about game design in general, or perhaps just a lack of creativity on your part. Homebrew does fill gaps, just as most new content is designed to do. Look at every first party expansion book that came out. Each race, base class, and prestige class that WotC put in was an attempt to fill a gap that was not well covered in the core game because there are many concepts that the core game does poorly.


Just look at the spellblade or gish concept. Core 3.5 does this pretty poorly even though it includes the Eldritch Knight PrC. While the EK can provide a spellcaster with better BAB and HD it does nothing to improve the ability to actually cast spells in combat. Doing so is just as disadvantageous (and foolish) as it is for any other caster leading to playing as just a self buffing martial who can also cast spells at a distance. A far cry from the ideal of seamlessly weaving spells and blades in the midst of thrashing death. Attempts were then made to fill this gap with the creation of the Duskblade (http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/duskblade/index.html) (and later the Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus) in Pathfinder) using new mechanics to improve the action economy, both to varying levels of success.

That is just an obvious example of a gap that exists and was attempted to be filled. Are there any gaps left? Of course there are. Just some of the concepts that I have had that could only be fulfilled with homebrew are...

Humanoid Eldritch Abomination - having an ever changing shapeshifter taking unimaginable forms to solve his problems is something that is completely absent from core (Druid doesn't even come close, and even the Master of Many Forms is limited to shapes of things that already exist) but is fully fleshed out in the Ozodrin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?153536-Tooth-and-Tentacle-base-class-PEACH).

Daelkyr evolutionary/cultural offshoot - looking to make a 'wide magic' approach to warpers of flesh (as opposed to the traditional 'high magic' approach of the demigod-like Daelkyr (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Daelkyr)). The progression from self-perfection, to maker of living items, to casual shaper of flesh is perfectly embodied in the Evolutionist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240717-The-better-man-There-is-no-such-thing-base-class) class then the Resin Mastercrafter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16764480&postcount=800) and High Evolutionary (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14290489&postcount=242) PrCs. Core has no equivalent to this martial crafter capable of granting permanent buffs.

Rage-fueled Determinator - a character whose answer to all opposition is MORE RAGE. I'm not talking about rage being a mere combat bonus but a solution. Magically held? Literally tear yourself out of it even if it half kills you. Mage trows up a Wall of Force between you? Push through it because Rage can never truly be stopped. Core has nothing for this. The Teramach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286983-3-5-Base-Class-quot-I-want-to-live-inside-a-castle-built-of-your-agony!-quot) is the very embodiment of this.


There are gaps galore in the game, gaps that were continually being filled with every book that WotC published and stopped not for lack of gaps but because the publisher stopped making books. That was the reason that I really started giving homebrew a shot in the first place, the realization that with the death of 3.5 (this was before Pathfinder was a thing) homebrew was the only source of new content that existed.

One of the things that you seem to overlook is not just the ability to find a solution to a problem, but to find a good solution. A good solution needs appropriate mechanical support to make it not only distinct, interesting, and satisfying, but to actually solve an issue that is poorly (or no at all) addressed in core. If your idea to achieve a concept is to kluge up a partial spellcaster and then re-flavor the spells as punches or some such nonsense then you are completely ignoring the necessary satisfaction that comes with mechanical distinction. WotC did this as well with 4e, where every class was essentially a re-flavored version of the same template. How well was that received? Not well. Mechanics that actually fit are an important concept.

So, there are gaps in core, and there is a need for mechanics that can best fill those gaps. That is why one seeks homebrew in 3.5.

[King of Nowhere]

Good homebrew requires superior system knowledge/mastery, both to fill a missing niche in core and to create something that is balanced within the system. Coming up with new, balanced mechanics to fulfill a roll is not something that someone new to the hobby is generally capable of.



I think an important point to underline here is that there are several kinds of system mastery.
In particular, the ability to understand how the rules interact with each other and create new content that works is a completely different skill than knowing the subtleties of 50 splatbooks. Several people are not realizing this. In particular vaz when he claims that one with enough system mastery to make a good homebrew is also capable of getting a good raw build, which is totally not true, as the skill to homebrew and that of making raw builds are different.

[Vaz]

{Scrubbed}

[Vaz]

So you are saying that becoming an omnipotent being who decides to curtail his own powers permanently to oonly get a specific subset is better than getting that specific subset from the beginning? :smallconfused:
I wonder how you can refluff that.

At every time your character is about to level up, ghey can take a level of Psion, Wizard, Ardent, or Erudite, and become a literal god.

Any character who does not do so is not embracing their full potential within the character.

Plenty of wizards are taken as support charscters, buffing, debuffing, none damage spells without simply going full Tippyverse. What is it you can u are finding so hard to contemplate otherwise?

[Quertus]

So, you'ee unwilling to take any ability, and only limit yourself to certain effects, but will create a class that can take any ability, but can create any effect?

Just so we're clear, 3.5 allows you to fulfil any concept, you are just not willing to fulfil that concept using the tools provided?

I mean, that's cool. You're allowed. The question is, why? One of the answer given was that 3.5 doesn't allow that. Counterpoint is that it does, and verifiably does so. Ergo, I am correct, but being called that it doesn't.

The point remains that there have been 2 examples that have been given a character cannot do a certain thing: 1, be a Necromancer Monk with low BAB, and 2, be a Street Samurai, which I have stated is a distinct possibility thanks to the 'Casual disconcern' fromt he Psionic Handbook.

Nobody it is saying it's not fun, i do so myaelf. But saying the X isn't represented is verifiably wrong.

I'm having trouble following your... English, and your logic, actually.

Can you have any mechanical effect in RAW, without homebrew, via PunPun? Well, yes. You are technically correct.

Does that eliminate the need for homebrew? For those for whom all they care about is the end result, the mechanical effect, I suppose the answer might be "yes".

However, when one also cares about the feel of the character, or wants a background that isn't, "I used to be an omnipotent Kobald", a background that actually matches the character... or, you know, when one wants a character that will be accepted at an actual table, then, yes, using PunPun as a base falls short.

I view this not so much as moving goalposts, as simply clarifying what people mean when they say that homebrew fills gaps.


The alternative would be to - should another player at your table print out a stack of homebrew they "found online" and ask for your opinion because they thought it was cool - evaluate each one as though it came from a better curated source.


Good homebrew requires superior system knowledge/mastery, both to fill a missing niche in core and to create something that is balanced within the system. Coming up with new, balanced mechanics to fulfill a roll is not something that someone new to the hobby is generally capable of.

IMO, the best answer is not to balance individual mechanics, but to evaluate each character's balance to the party, regardless of source. Otherwise, you end up with the Improved Crit Great Cleave Keen Vorpal Fighter, and the party Monk, completely outshining my poor tier 1 Wizard. :smallwink:

[Vaz]

Inapologise if my engrish is uosetting your ability to read and understand hard concepts like 'Pun Pun doesn't require Kobold'.

I am typing fron a phone, and as we all know, people lime to fall back on 'you typed a word wrong ergo, I can' t understand you, but you appear to disagree with me, so you must be wrong'.

I apologise for the use of my phone to talk.

Again, I've filled the 3 gaps people have mentioned without breaking out wishing you were a Scaled One of Toril, but hey, ignore that fact.

Any more concepts?

If you want you 'feel' your character is limited to the upper bounds only of what you can do, then why do you take Fighter levels when you could take Wizard? And why are you taking random race when you could he a Grey Elf? Why are you not ultra optimizing yourself?

Absolute scrub of a concept that you limit yourself to a class, but not the abilities to take when you have free reign to take anything. Also, delusional. If you take a class sayng it limits you, the is exactly the same as taking a class which doesn't limit you, but choosing to limit to yourself.

If a Fighter 10 is functionally the exact same as Pun Pun with the same abilities as a Fighter 10, what are the rest of the players to know? The DM mainowz but if you don't start giving yourself HD based spellcasting of a Phaerimm, or other wacky abilities you're sorted. And exactly the same as any other Fighter 10.

[Nifft]

I see novice players bring it into games run at my shop at least once every two weeks. Until they improved labeling, some were ostensibly unaware it was home-brew.
There have been 10 threads on this forum about it. There is generally about 1 thread a quarter about it on the D&D Reddit.
Consider also it's placement on search results for D&D homebrew.

This is, sadly, all anecdotal - but, alas, there is little in the way of cross-sectional studies of homebrew usage.

Additionally, I am not positing that "many tables" use it, much less uncritically. I'm positing that many tables need to be aware of it and take it into consideration. Even if that consideration is a blanket ban on content from there, you need to be aware of it.
The alternative would be to - should another player at your table print out a stack of homebrew they "found online" and ask for your opinion because they thought it was cool - evaluate each one as though it came from a better curated source. Okay, so this "awareness" is at the level of being aware that you should not eat unidentified stuff that you find on the ground.

Technically I guess it would apply to all tables, but... it's really not an issue, certainly not for most adults.





I agree that curation is an issue for both homebrew and first party. I disagree that it is the exact same issue. There are several important differences, and all of them are matters of differences in degree:
The corpus of 3.5 official material is no longer expanding: curation has thus become a relatively static matter if you have already familiarized yourself with the corpus. In contrast, while it has slowed, 3.5 homebrew is still expanding.
Curation for official content can be more readily outsourced to existing online guidance, which more commonly exists for official content than for homebrew. You will always get better results if you understand the details well enough to make the judgment yourself, but where someone does need to outsource such judgments (and some tables do), you can do so more readily and reliably for official content.

Importantly, this outsourceing is sufficeient for the needs of some tables. Adding homebrew can change that balance: you can, after all, play a bare-bones 3.5 game with less system mastery than is requried to evaluate homebrew well.



Mmm, no. I can't agree with that.

I think what you mean when you say "online guidance", you mean character creation handbooks & guides, stuff like Eggynack's Druid Handbook (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?439991-Being-Everything-Eggynack-s-Comprehensive-Druid-Handbook) or JoshuaD's Bard Handbook (http://www.joshuad.net/new-bard-handbook/).

Those don't tell a DM how to make a good game. Instead, they tell you how to exploit whatever material your DM will allow to make the strongest PC, up to and including breaking the game (which tends to make the game worse).

If that's what you mean by "online guidance", then I think they do not replace the DM's responsibility to curate -- rather, they make it critical that the DM be even more aware of all the possible ways that a player could break the game.


Perhaps I'm missing out on some good online guidance & game resources for DMs?

[Albions_Angel]

So things seem to be getting really heated here. I would like to take it back a notch. I dont think many people would argue homebrew is NECESSARY, but I feel most would argue that it can plug certain holes.

A lot of the top tier ultimate TO builds use stuff from dragon mag, and even within that, stuff from outside of dragon compendium. Is that not all homebrew?

Pathfinder changes a bunch of rules otherwise not open to change in 3.5e, is that not a form of homebrew?

Vaz, I get where you are coming from with some of the things you say. Any high level wizard can replicate nearly anything else in the game. And PunPun doesnt even need to be high level to do it. But even PunPun needs help from items, infinite chains, and hell, even needs DM fiat to obtain divine ranks (doesnt the build rely on holding the gods to ransom by cutting off access to their believers?).

Without usually high level items, how does a level 1 character get infinite cantrips in 3.5e? How do they get spells that refresh after an hours rest? How do they get that AND eldritch invocations AND a familiar, and still have space for feats that dont grant those things? I dont think they can. The class I am describing is the 5e Warlock. If I had a player that wanted to play one in a 3.5e game, I would have to port it over. A homebrew class. And that, right there, is the penultimate point. Sometimes, people want to play a game that isnt quite 3.5e, and that requires changes to the rules, which is homebrew by definition.

The ultimate point is a simple one, and requires no examples, no straw men, no goal posts to move. Some people have fun doing it. And thats ok. You dont have to like it. But when asked "Why homebrew in 3.5?" its literally the only answer that matters, everything else is fluff.

Some people enjoy homebrew because they want a power trip. PunPun is a god and can do anything, but here is a class whos only class ability is "beats PunPun at everything". Not my cup of tea, but whatever.

Some people enjoy homebrew because they have poor system mastery, or find the splat books intimidating. Maybe they are making a class that can be done another way. Maybe it cant be done another way, or comes online earlier or later than doing it by RAW. But its what they want.

Some people enjoy homebrew because the have AMAZING system mastery and have found holes that maybe we havent found. These people might sit quietly as DMs, or they might be the creators of Pathfinder, or Spheres of Power.

Some people enjoy homebrew because they can mold existing content into new shapes. Either they change fluff to better fit crunch (even changing fluff is homebrew of a kind, though very minor), or they change crunch to fit fluff. There is a thread right now on how the Bebelith used to overcome demonic DR in 3.0, but the changes to DR in 3.5e meant it no longer does that, making it singularly useless at actually killing demons by RAW. Homebrewing a rule to give them back the ability to overcome DR would fill a gap in the crunch to fluff section.

And all of this is ok. You dont have to like homebrew. You dont have to do it. There is lots you can do without it. But people will do it regardless. And thats fine.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This seems to have run it's course/been run into the ground. Thread locked.