How open are you to homebrew?

[Alabenson]

I have a general question for the DMs on the board; generally how open are you to allowing homebrew in your games? Is it something that you have a blanket ban against, or are you willing to consider it on a case-by-case basis? I ask because I enjoy creating homebrew myself, and I was wondering what considerations a DM might generally have before permitting any of it to see actual play.

[Falontani]

I generally do not allow homebrew in my games. Except. When I do.

Basically when I find outstanding homebrew that knocks my socks off I consider it. I think about it. I consider where it falls power wise. If I believe that it may be suitable for my game, I send it over to the other DMs, and the most experienced player we have. (we play with the same groups 2 nights a week, sometimes 2-4 games running at a time) If all three of us agree that it is good then we put it in our specific Homebrew folder. The players can use anything in the homebrew folder as if it was official (meaning usually okay, however some are ask first). If it is not in the homebrew folder and a player asks to use it generally I say no. (this includes dragon magazine). If we've made it ourself then we usually try to balance it for our groups so it is generally okay.

[Goaty14]

After going through 2 recruitments (and a 3rd right now), here's what I think about homebrew:
First, anything can be done in D&D 3.5 <that quote about skydiving dwarves and rebuke hippos>. Thus, anybody who doesn't have their character concept is either still levelling to get there, or needs to refluff an existing mechanic.
Second, whenever I see "case-by-case basis" it basically translates to the players "go whole hog on your requests, maybe he'll be stupid enough to allow it", which I don't like (duh).
Third, I don't like tier problems as much as anybody. Sure, I'd make a character that speaks 12 different languages, and uses his words to dominate others, but when you tell me that I could make a truenamer to do that, the idea is as good as gone. Sure, 3.5 has a mechanic for everything, but they aren't all good.

To actually answer the OP, I'm not open to new, "original" homebrew. I'm open to homebrew that fixes bad mechanics that are already in place. You should probably advertise your homebrew as being within what's already within the lines of the game. Instead of saying "This is my bladeslinger, an original base class that throws stuff", you should do it something more like "This is my bladeslinger, a bloodstorm-blade turned base class".

[BowStreetRunner]

Homebrew, Dragon Magazine articles, and a variety of third party sources often include content that someone thought was cool but maybe they didn't think it through all that well. Before I allow anything - even official content in some cases such as allowing Eberron content in a Forgotten Realms game - I like to really consider what is the potential to be game-breaking and how do I think the content will interact with other facets of the game. The law of unintended consequences often heralds the demise of many untested rules.

I've had players tell me that I should allow them to play with some potentially broken content because they promise they won't use it in a broken manner, but I still say no. The reason is that I don't want to open the door for them and then have to shut it on another player down the road.

If someone comes to me with something about which I am skeptical, I would prefer to introduce a toned down version of that rule and then go back later and juice it up if it turns out too weak, than have to go in and nerf it later.

Also, if I'm not sure of the impact I look for discussions relating to similar rules on these forums, or sometimes even post questions to the Playground about specific rules to see what others think.

[Jowgen]

Quite closed.

I draw the line at adapting existing material to work in a different but similar context. Like a racially-themed PrC adapted for a different race that really should have its own version, or somesuch. Straight up homebrew... I simply can not abide.

[Acanous]

Not.

The furthest I’ll go is discounting fluff requirements on prestige classes and feats, like if you’re playing in Greyhawk or Darksun and want to take a Faerun specific feat/class.

Go for it, the fluff is mutable.

Edit: on that same vein, if you were like “here’s a Drow Spider Rider prestige class, it’s 3 levels and gives you a mount class feature and lets you do ride and handle animal as free actions on your turn when directing your mount, it’s in this forgotten realms book. can I use it for my halfling dinosaur rider since we’re in Eberron?”
I would probably OK that.

[Elkad]

I'd say I'm pretty open.

Houserules? Lots of them.
Stuff stolen from PF or 1e or whatever? Sure. (often with adjustments of course)
Refluffing racial/setting requirements? Fine.

Custom spell research? Huge amounts. Did my players get ideas from dndwiki? I usually have no idea, I don't ask.
Present me with a spell and put your research cost on deposit. I'll work with you to clean up any ambiguous text so I know exactly how you want it to work, and then I'll assign it a spell level.
You pay half the research cost for the assigned level. If you aren't happy with that, you can rework it and resubmit. Paying half the cost (again) of whatever new level I assign to it. Which - if you didn't change it enough - might be exactly the same. When we agree, you finish the research and pay the other half of the cost.
Charging them extra for submitting overpowered stuff means they tend to lowball their submissions. And I've occasionally looked at a submission marked "4th level" and said "nah, that's only 3rd". But it has to be fairly blatantly underpowered.

Many of the custom spells are just straight school swaps anyway. No reason a spell can't exist in multiple schools. For example: with minor changes, versions of Mage Armor exist in Abjuration, Conjuration, Evocation, Necromancy, and Transmutation. All are 1st level, 1hr/level duration, and give 4pts of Armor Bonus. When someone argues for an Illusion(Shadow) version, I'll approve that as well. Divination? Maybe. Enchantment? Probably not.

Or straight upgrades of an existing spell. Magic Missile with more missiles out of a 4th level slot? Why not? You could metamagic a 1st level one to do something similar anyway. Instead of a feat price (which could then be used for multiple spells), you pay cash&time for each spell.


Custom classes are about the only thing I rarely work with my players on. Changing a feature of an existing class? Sure.

[mabriss lethe]

I'm willing to look over homebrew when a player is interested in it, but it comes with a few caveats. I want a compelling reason to include it. I reserve the right to modify it if the need arises, and ultimately I reserve the right to retroactively change my mind and remove it from play if it becomes a problem.

[Ignimortis]

I 'brew stuff myself, so if something is actually good and somewhat balanced, I tend to allow it, unless it would exacerbate the existing 3.5's problems. I am not averse to having a few mechanics duplicate each other so that players can access their ideas in different ways.

[Zanos]

I'll look at homebrew requests from people I know, but don't entertain them for first timers at my table.

[Nifft]

My own homebrew is mostly of a known quality, and mostly welcome.

My players' homebrew is often workable, in that we can talk about it and change it and generally adapt it to the game, or vice-versa.

The homebrew of strangers is potentially okay, but not welcome by default. But then, 1st party content isn't always welcome either -- there's plenty of garbage in the official hardcovers.

[Mike Miller]

I am not open to Homebrew. There is enough material in 3.5 to make any character my players could want without making stuff up

[NerdHut]

I use some homebrew in my game. Most of it is small tweaks to existing systems. Some of it straddles the line between homebrew and houserule, like the simplified critical hit rules I use. I never automatically approve new homebrew a player brings, though. Too many things that could evade a first glance analysis.

In my official campaign rules I spell out what homebrew I'm making available from the get-go (A witch class, some feats, things like that). I also put in a note about introducing homebrew and needing to discuss it and go over it before it's adopted.

[Hrugner]

I tend to run games that are pretty modified, and I am happy to work with players that want a specific effect. If a player wants something that the game can't do for them, I ask them what narrative result they want and homebrew something for them. If they want something mechanical it's usually a no.

No:
I want to use my wisdom bonus for my to hit and damage.
Maybe:
I want my character to be able to read his opponent and beat them by reading their moves and using their strength against them.
Yes:
Could my spell book by a really big scroll?

[Crake]

I'm open to making homebrew for something, like homebrew savage progressions, or class reworks and things like that, but usually I can't be bothered trying to assess someone else's homebrew to see whether it's good or not.

[Quertus]

Where to start on answering this question? Hmmm...

So, IIRC, the core rules encourage the GM to brew up some homebrew to add flavor to their worlds. Most GMs don't. So, sadly, while I'm open to looking at my GMs' brew, there just isn't any. :smallfrown:

How balanced the brew is is, honestly, utterly irrelevant. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, is a tier 1 Wizard, who constantly gets out-performed by the Fighter and Monk in the party. The only balance that matters is the balance of the final character to the module, and to the group. That Tippy could theoretically run a core Wizard who ran circles around that party is utterly irrelevant to that party's balance dynamic.

If someone was dead set on some brew, I'd be curious why, given the breadth of content available in 3e. If the answer was because they were ignorant of how to implement their concept otherwise, well, there's plenty of people in my groups who'd be happy to educate them - let alone crowd-sourcing resources like the Playground. If, otoh, they, like me, just love making and using brew, or, like me, they'd rather have the elegance of a single brew over a Frankenstein of 15 classes from as many splats, then I can hardly fault them for that, now can I?

[Bakkan]

Generally I only allow homebrew that I've created specifically for the campaign or world (for instance, I 'brewed up a player race of incarnum orcs for a desert campaign). There are a few houserules I use, though the older I get the fewer I use.

Part of the reason that I prefer to avoid homebrew is to maintain stylistic cohesion. While there were many authors in 3.5, and different settings are definitely distinct from one another, there's still, to me, a "feel" to the D&D 3.5 crunch and fluff that much homebrew does not adhere to. For instance, I had someone ask me one time to play a class explicitly based on the Hulk (Marvel comics). I admit that this is very subjective, and I'm confident that there are homebrewers out there who do a better job at matching the 3.5 experience than this, but I've seen one too many gunslingers to have much hope for this in general.

[Uncle Pine]

If you can imagine it, there are at least a couple ways to do it in 3.5e.

I'm pretty closed to homebrew myself.

That said, I do allow to draw stuff from Hyperconscious and 3.x Dragon magazines, as well as technically using Mike Mearl's unofficial Hexblade fix (even though no one has ever asked to make a Hexblade character). I've also used a couple templates from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary from time to time.

[gooddragon1]

I try to make simple classes for homebrew that I can enjoy to hit the spot of people who don't like to read a lot with regards to homebrew.

[radthemad4]

I haven't DM'd in a long time due to scheduling issues, but when I did, I was willing to look at any homebrew a player asked for and openly discuss it with other players before I decide to allow, reject or modify it. I'm more likely to accept homebrew that's written in an easy to understand manner and doesn't have overly complicated mechanics. I'd reserve the right to further modify it later if I feel it's too strong or weak in gameplay between sessions (I'm not great at gauging balance, but I don't like saying no to something unless I really feel like I have to), but if I do, I'd allow the player a full respec (I prefer to allow this pretty much anytime players have downtime, and people I play with have never abused this) or the chance to make a new character if they like.

While there's a lot of stuff you 'could' do using 3.5 official material alone, you often have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it (acf diving, feat taxes, skill taxes, class dips, specific prcs that take a while to reach, etc) and end up worse than a more conventional build. A homebrew fix or new base class is often less hassle.

I treat official material, dragon magazine, third party material and homebrew pretty much the same way. It's not like there isn't already plenty of stuff in 3.5 that I wouldn't allow, e.g. Candle of Invocation, Planar Ally/Binding, Uncanny Forethought, Leadership, etc.

[Doctor Awkward]

I have a general question for the DMs on the board; generally how open are you to allowing homebrew in your games? Is it something that you have a blanket ban against, or are you willing to consider it on a case-by-case basis? I ask because I enjoy creating homebrew myself, and I was wondering what considerations a DM might generally have before permitting any of it to see actual play.

I'm open to anything in my games as long as it is good.

Generally the only criteria I have for not allowing homebrew is if it's functionally identical to something that already exists in another rulebook somewhere.

Last piece of homebrew I used in a game was a psionic adaptation of Jade Phoenix Mage. That was a lot of fun.

[BWR]

Depends on how you define homebrew. House rules and alterations to existing stuff: tons.
Flat-out new mechanics: generally no - there's a ton of stuff already in the game so we don't usually need to bloat it even more.
Exceptions do occur, but are few and far between.

I like creating homebrew stuff, but I rarely introduce it.

[gooddragon1]

Depends on how you define homebrew. House rules and alterations to existing stuff: tons.
Flat-out new mechanics: generally no - there's a ton of stuff already in the game so we don't usually need to bloat it even more.
Exceptions do occur, but are few and far between.

I like creating homebrew stuff, but I rarely introduce it.

Which is the other thing I go for, but more because it should be easier to review something that's familiar.

Example: ki mystic 3.5 (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ki_Mystic_(3.5e_Class))

[lylsyly]

To actually answer the OP, I'm not open to new, "original" homebrew. I'm open to homebrew that fixes bad mechanics that are already in place. You should probably advertise your homebrew as being within what's already within the lines of the game. Instead of saying "This is my bladeslinger, an original base class that throws stuff", you should do it something more like "This is my bladeslinger, a bloodstorm-blade turned base class".

This.


My players' homebrew is often workable, in that we can talk about it and change it and generally adapt it to the game, or vice-versa.

And this.

Of the 6 people in my group (all of whom take turns DMing) I am the only one that allows homebrew. Most of the classes/prcs I allow in my campaign world have already been modified by me. If a players comes to me with homebrew or something from a book not normally allowed I will review it to check for balance/fit. If its okay I allow it, if I consider it unbalanced or too powerful for my campaign I either disallow it or work with the player to bring it more inline with what I am doing.

[Alabenson]

While there's a lot of stuff you 'could' do using 3.5 official material alone, you often have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it (acf diving, feat taxes, skill taxes, class dips, specific prcs that take a while to reach, etc) and end up worse than a more conventional build. A homebrew fix or new base class is often less hassle.

I treat official material, dragon magazine, third party material and homebrew pretty much the same way. It's not like there isn't already plenty of stuff in 3.5 that I wouldn't allow, e.g. Candle of Invocation, Planar Ally/Binding, Uncanny Forethought, Leadership, etc.

This is pretty much why I've never agreed with the stance that homebrew is unnecessary because of the breadth of published material in 3.5.

[Quertus]

-snip-

Good sir, that post was a thing of beauty. May you have time to run more games, and players who appreciate your wisdom.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

The hardest part that I have with home brew is how balanced is it? In a created race should it deserve a level adjustment or not? In a class, it either ends up way too strong, or something that fails.

Thing is race wise, Pathfinder has a race builder, that's built off of a point buy system, after so many points the race gets level adjustment (Pathfinder level adjustment is CR adjustment). Some people would consider that as home brew, personally I don't.. class wise I've found a few guides for making classes, but the same problem happens with too powerful or too weak. Though throughout all of D&D and Pathfinder materials, there's a good chance you can find a class/mix of classes to do what you want to do.

[gooddragon1]

The hardest part that I have with home brew is how balanced is it? In a created race should it deserve a level adjustment or not? In a class, it either ends up way too strong, or something that fails.

Thing is race wise, Pathfinder has a race builder, that's built off of a point buy system, after so many points the race gets level adjustment (Pathfinder level adjustment is CR adjustment). Some people would consider that as home brew, personally I don't.. class wise I've found a few guides for making classes, but the same problem happens with too powerful or too weak. Though throughout all of D&D and Pathfinder materials, there's a good chance you can find a class/mix of classes to do what you want to do.

To be fair you've got stuff like "that damn crab" and hydras which are weird in cr as well as incantatrix and truenamer. It's not always straightforward even with published material.

[heavyfuel]

I don't think "skydiving dwarfs" is a good argument to say you should stick to books only. Sure, most times you can do precisely what you want to do without any homebrewing, but it usually involves having to jump through numerous hoops and investing a significant amount of resources into just having your concept work.

If you can do whatever you want, but you need 15 levels to do it, then it's not really feasible. If your character concept involves items totaling 200'000 GP, you might as well go play something else.

Honestly, I'd say the cut-off point is level 9. If you can't do what precisely what you want by level 9, then it's just not worth the wait and you're better off talking to your DM to homebrew stuff. (in most games, of course you can still make crazy characters that only start working at lv 15 if you start your game at lv 20 or whatever)


I'll look at homebrew requests from people I know, but don't entertain them for first timers at my table.

This sums up my position on homebrew perfectly. Also, big red flag if a first timer asks to play homebrew whatever.

[Aniikinis]

I'm fine with homebrew as long as it's not obviously broken. If it ends up being broken or part of some insane combo, I then rule on a case-by-case basis but usually allow it in my games due to them tending to be meat grinders on purpose and the players will need any help they can get (they're fine with this and enjoy the challenge, though if they want I'll gladly make it even harder for them).

However, if a class seems to be balanced on the major low end I'll gladly houserule a higher balance point to allow them to play more effectively.

[Uncle Pine]

Honestly, I'd say the cut-off point is level 9. If you can't do what precisely what you want by level 9, then it's just not worth the wait

Best way to sum up TO ever. :smallwink:

[heavyfuel]

Best way to sum up TO ever. :smallwink:

Uhhh, what? :smallconfused:

[Necroticplague]

I am open to homebrew. However, I am not open to reviewing it for a game. If I make an open 'run any brew by me for this campaign' rule, I'll have to spend way to much time reading over stuff for my liking. Instead, you can submit brew to me in my off-times so that I can possibly add it to my 'list of approved brew' for use in future campaigns. I don't mind reading a lot of brew when I don't have a time crunch to respond fast enough for you to prepare a character.

[Necroticplague]

Uhhh, what? :smallconfused:

TO, theoretical optimization, is full of ways, through incredibly pedantic (and sometimes logically dubious) interpretation of rules, to do things earlier than either intended or otherwise possible. The epitomy of this is a trick that allows you to get essentially infinite power at level 1. The joke is that the attitude of 'it's not able to be done by 9, it's not worth doing' bears some resemblance to the attitude of TO maker's to attempt to reduce minimum levels required, however for completely different reasons.

[GrayDeath]

This is pretty much why I've never agreed with the stance that homebrew is unnecessary because of the breadth of published material in 3.5.

That.

To elaborate: Huserules en masse in our "Real" Tables, some at the least nline.

I am usually loathe to introduce wholly new mechnaics, but overhauling existing stuff, mixing and matching to get a certain concept going from level 1, or for example simply combining the class features of some less played classes to make one that is fun, are often used.

Also, making Brews is fun in itself. Just adding it. ;)

Now, if somehting brewed FITS a certain Game, that is another matter altogether, and one where I tend to be rather strict.

[Anachronity]

For me it generally comes down to the homebrew being all of...
A) Not complicated, or interesting enough to justify its complexity
B) Tonally consistent. No magical girls or giant robots or whatever unless that's the type of campaign we're playing.
C) Well-constructed and inoffensive in terms of power, detail, and reasonable justification.

Where 'A' most often comes up is new systems or subsystems. Your Animancer, for example, implements a casting system based on life energy. What does this system add to the game to account for its complexity? The system allows for an abnormally high number of spells per day at low levels, fluctuating strongly with Charisma (due to extra uses/day of siphon and extra damage based on charisma). A 14 charisma at 1st level gets you ~6 spell levels, but an 18 charisma gets you from 10 to 14 spell levels. The theme of a give-and-take lifeforce mage can be accomplished without a new subsystem having only a shakey mathematical grounding.

Conversely, classes that stick to existing systems and rules and simply try to combine them in a new way, or which deal with problems that certain classes have in a way that works entirely within existing rules, are generally more widely accepted. For example: A pyrokineticist base class that tries to stick to the prestige class as closely as possible, but with added options against fire-immune foes and flavorful extensions of existing class abilities.


'C' is also a common stumbling block. Even many actual D&D classes are offensive in terms of power or balance. If you're asking a GM to go out of their way and take a chance on something that could end up causing trouble, then that class needs to hold itself to a higher standard. Going back to your Animancer, it also does not bother to explain exactly what is a valid target. Can the Animancer take life energy from random forest critters? From earthworms? From trees? It's not that the class is broken if you decide that it is allowed to use these resources; it's just a question that is inevitably going to crop up during gameplay, possibly at an important time when I want to be able to quickly reference a definitive and non-biased source (rather than the decidedly biased player who made the homebrew for the character in question).

EDIT: and also fast healing or other repeatable, non-magical healing appears to allow for infinite spells per day with soulburn. Presumably not intended, but that's what's written.

You should also probably not be trying to keep up with wizards, because even many actual D&D classes are offensive and wizards are among them. For example, I adore the idea behind Gramarie but will never actually allow it because it's intentionally designed to be as busted as wizards are. Call me bitter, but in my experience most GMs insane enough to allow these sorts of super-powered classes in their games are not actually concerned with the rules at all, and are likely to either allow you to get away with absolutely anything anyways or else intend to ignore the vast, cosmic implications of your abilities and arbitrarily sabotage them instead. Very briefly looking over your homebrew, it doesn't seem like you have much of a problem here as all your classes I've looked at are tier 3-ish.

[Zanos]

I don't think "skydiving dwarfs" is a good argument to say you should stick to books only. Sure, most times you can do precisely what you want to do without any homebrewing, but it usually involves having to jump through numerous hoops and investing a significant amount of resources into just having your concept work.

If you can do whatever you want, but you need 15 levels to do it, then it's not really feasible. If your character concept involves items totaling 200'000 GP, you might as well go play something else.
Agreed. Sure, you can do "anything" in 3.5, but it's generally some kind of Frankenstein if you're trying to do something niche with about 30 more moving parts than are necessary. That said I'm also not under any obligation to make every possible character concept in any fantasy setting that ever existed viable; I won't accept a "magical girl"(lol paizo) or "snotmancer" class if I'm running a relatively serious setting, no matter how mechanically sound.


This sums up my position on homebrew perfectly. Also, big red flag if a first timer asks to play homebrew whatever.
I'd love to take the attitude that "I allow good homebrew", but between everything else I need to do as a DM and real life obligations, I implement some basic triage. Some simple red flags are people who I've never played with before, D&DWiki, and classes that were inspired to directly model a character from other media with a different tone/lore. I like anime as much as the next guy, but I'm not looking at a "Death God" class.

Really though, I avoid most problems by just not playing with people I don't like. If you see a party of a sword and board fighter with PHB feats, a frontline healer cleric, and a trapfinder/scout rogue, and you roll up an infinite PP loop StP Erudite, we're probably not gonna be friends for very long.



You should also probably not be trying to keep up with wizards, because even many actual D&D classes are offensive and wizards are among them. For example, I adore the idea behind Gramarie but will never actually allow it because it's intentionally designed to be as busted as wizards are. Call me bitter, but in my experience most GMs insane enough to allow these sorts of super-powered classes in their games are not actually concerned with the rules at all, and are likely to either allow you to get away with absolutely anything anyways or else intend to ignore the vast, cosmic implications of your abilities and arbitrarily sabotage them instead. Very briefly looking over your homebrew, it doesn't seem like you have much of a problem here as all your classes I've looked at are tier 3-ish.
The barrier to entry for maximum potential wizard play is pretty high, so I don't consider "is as strong as an optimally played wizard" to be a valid balance point either. I've had far more games disrupted by mailmen and uber chargers than buff/cc wizards, because even if played very well the wizard is at least synergistic with the party, and I can reduce their effectiveness marginally with dispels, counterspells, readied actions and focus fire, where if the uber charger or mailman gets an uninterrupted turn, the encounter is generally over unless I made everything immune to HP damage, which is possible but extremely silly for a real table.

[Alabenson]

Where 'A' most often comes up is new systems or subsystems. Your Animancer, for example, implements a casting system based on life energy. What does this system add to the game to account for its complexity? The system allows for an abnormally high number of spells per day at low levels, fluctuating strongly with Charisma (due to extra uses/day of siphon and extra damage based on charisma). A 14 charisma at 1st level gets you ~6 spell levels, but an 18 charisma gets you from 10 to 14 spell levels. The theme of a give-and-take lifeforce mage can be accomplished without a new subsystem having only a shakey mathematical grounding.

From my own perspective, the Animancer adds an alternative to Vancian spellcasting that covers a concept frequently seen in fiction, i.e. the spellcaster that fuels their magic by draining the life of others. The math I used to calculate the damage to spell level ratio was geared towards higher levels, so I'm not totally surprised that the results may be a bit skewed in lower levels, but the class is still a WiP that needs to be playtested before I'd call it complete.
Part of my process when creating a new class is to try and playtest it to identify and correct issues that need to be addressed that I may have missed; right now I'm working on the Feyblessed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329798-The-Feyblessed-(3-5-Base-Class)-PEACH), the Cosmic Knight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380549-The-Cosmic-Knight-(3-5-Base-Class)-PEACH&p=18327762#post18327762), the Templar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332566-The-Templar-(Base-class-3-5-PEACH)&p=17040436#post17040436), the Dabbler (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385244-The-Dabbler-(PEACH)) and the Ascetic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?388309-The-Ascetic-(PEACH)). Of the five, the only one thus far that hasn't needed at least some tweaking has been the Templar.


EDIT: and also fast healing or other repeatable, non-magical healing appears to allow for infinite spells per day with soulburn. Presumably not intended, but that's what's written.


Again, the Animancer is still listed as a WiP for a reason and addressing that particular issue is near the top of my to do list for when I revisit the class during my next major playtesting run.

[Kelb_Panthera]

How open am I? Almost not at all.

Custom items on a case-by-case basis, some adaptation of PrCs, and that's about it.

The game is actually better designed than it's typically given credit for (though still a hell of a long ways from perfect or well balanced). There's hardly anything you can't do, short of copying pretty specific stuff from other fictions, with the system as-is. Even the so-called "mundane" classes are well into superhuman territory by mid-level.

[gooddragon1]

There's hardly anything you can't do, short of copying pretty specific stuff from other fictions, with the system as-is. Even the so-called "mundane" classes are well into superhuman territory by mid-level.

Melee touch attacks dealing warlock damage that scale with level + lay on hands as a class feature scaling as well all on a base class?

Sometimes the rules fall short on certain playstyles. Not often, but dipping into prcs is blegh for me.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Melee touch attacks dealing warlock damage that scale with level + lay on hands as a class feature scaling as well all on a base class?

Sometimes the rules fall short on certain playstyles. Not often, but dipping into prcs is blegh for me.

No system will ever do what you want if you're unwilling to engage with it. Observe the following;

Multiclassing is a thing and it's largely unrestricted.

PrCs exist to combine or specialize class features from base classes and/or offer brand new abilities at the cost of advancing your base class features.

Magic items offer a truly prodigious array of abilities, many of which exist nowhere else.

Combining these three elements in various ways offers nearly limitless variety.



If simplicity is what you want, this system could scarcely be more wrong for you. When you have a square peg and a round hole, it's usually easier to go find a round peg than to shave your square down to fit. 5e, for example, is much simpler (for the time being) than 3e with much of the same flavor, including product identity items like beholders and mindflayers.

[gooddragon1]

No system will ever do what you want if you're unwilling to engage with it. Observe the following;

Multiclassing is a thing and it's largely unrestricted.

PrCs exist to combine or specialize class features from base classes and/or offer brand new abilities at the cost of advancing your base class features.

Magic items offer a truly prodigious array of abilities, many of which exist nowhere else.

Combining these three elements in various ways offers nearly limitless variety.



If simplicity is what you want, this system could scarcely be more wrong for you. When you have a square peg and a round hole, it's usually easier to go find a round peg than to shave your square down to fit. 5e, for example, is much simpler (for the time being) than 3e with much of the same flavor, including product identity items like beholders and mindflayers.

I disagree. One my favorite things about 3.5 is that you can make just about anything happen. A barbarian who rages, power attacks, and full attacks is about one of the simplest things out there. It's not as effective as a wizard using their spells intelligently, but it is fun for some people. The wizard is there for people who enjoy complexity. 3.5 can accommodate the different playstyles with a good DM and reasonable players.

Also, the fact that I wrote the Ki Mystic (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ki_Mystic_(3.5e_Class)#Ki_Mystic) indicates the system is capable of doing what I want because I am engaging with it. I'm just not engaging with one part of it (PRC/Multiclassing). That's not the system. That's the published material that won't do it. The system will allow me to write nearly any resource usage scheme I can imagine (power points, spell slots, recharge mechanics, etc.). A system that relies on rigidly defined balance (4e at will/per encounter/per day) will not do what you want if you don't stick rigidly to it. 3.5 will allow almost anything. The challenge will be in balancing the material, but different DMs have different balance points and negotiation is good. A class as easy to review as the ki mystic (what with having only 2 class features) would likely make negotiations very straightforward.

[Anachronity]

Again, the Animancer is still listed as a WiP for a reasonThat's fair. I was mostly just picking the first class on your list just for an example. Nothing against that class in particular, and it does have a lot of positives going for it too. But it doesn't really justify to me, hypothetically as a GM, the inclusion of a possibly-volatile subsystem.

I'm also quite willing to work with players on fixing things if they have their heart set on them and the thing in question is not inherently or flagrantly broken. That's fairly unusual in GMs though, for the understandable reason that they only have so much free time.

For your animancer, I might suggest the following: It gets a spells-per-day table identical to a sorcerer of one level higher. These spell slots start out blank, but you fill them in with 'memorized' spells chosen from the class list as you gain life force with your Siphon or Soulburn ability, at the time-of-use of that ability. You then use those memorized spells normally.

This establishes an upper limit, so you can also make the Siphon unlimited uses per day (but maybe add a Will save for half?) and make the hitpoint-to-spell-level ratios for that and Soulburn more favorable (for Soulburn it could even be 1-to-1, as long as you can't later recover those hitpoints in the same day; being a free action alone makes it attractive over just using Siphon on yourself and subsequently healing, as you can select and use a spell in the same round). You also now have a more reasonable advancement of spells/day for a high Cha modifier, and the more limited casting mechanic means you can also potentially expand the spell list slightly. It also has meaningful advantages over the wizard (in that it's almost spontaneous) and the sorcerer (in that it works fine with metamagic).



The barrier to entry for maximum potential wizard play is pretty high, so I don't consider "is as strong as an optimally played wizard" to be a valid balance point either. I've had far more games disrupted by mailmen and uber chargers than buff/cc wizards, because even if played very well the wizard is at least synergistic with the party, and I can reduce their effectiveness marginally with dispels, counterspells, readied actions and focus fire, where if the uber charger or mailman gets an uninterrupted turn, the encounter is generally over unless I made everything immune to HP damage, which is possible but extremely silly for a real table.Oh, I looked back and noticed I worded that poorly. I meant that about GMs that allow homebrew which tries to keep up with wizards. Wizards themselves are mostly fine as long as the player isn't powergaming.

I mean things like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?477086-The-Martial-Artist-%28Class-in-30-minutes-PEACH%29) (which is just plain ham-fisted)
or this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?306621-So-you-want-to-play-a-god-(3-5-Base-Class-PEACH)) (which I do like thematically, especially the idea of a deity-themed class getting the domain spells of selected domain(s) as SLAs, and I am generally a fan of Zaydos's homebrew)

[Climowitz]

The whole game i play is a homebrew so homebrew that it is not dnd no more