Does anyone else just cringe when they hear "homebrew"?

[Keeganwilson]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.

[nickl_2000]

Depends who is asking. If an long time experienced player is asking, they are more likely picking something because of thematic reasons and its more likely to be balanced.

A new player, yes shuddering will be involved.

[stoutstien]

Depends on the source of the Homebrew. There's a few people out there that I really good at it as far as balance and flavor are concerned.

[nickl_2000]

Depends on the source of the Homebrew. There's a few people out there that I really good at it as far as balance and flavor are concerned.

I'll agree with that strongly. I would allow most done by Grod, JNAProduction, or Kryx on here.

[JackPhoenix]

No, I cringe when I see someone using "cringe".

Sturgeon's law applies to homebrew as much as anything else. But there's nothing wrong with using homebrewed stuff in your game.

Do you run your own setting? Give the characters magic items not included in the DMG? Create your own enemies? If you do, then you're homebrewing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Nothing inherently wrong with homebrewing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nothing inherently wrong with homebrewing.

Right. I homebrew a lot. Most of it only ever enters games on the NPC side, because I'm 90% of the time a DM.

But I only use my homebrew[1], and I'm pretty conservative about it.

[1] I use monsters from a few 3pp sources, but modify them for better fit and balance. I've been burned once or twice with oddly-balanced monsters with unfun/annoying-to-run abilities. Mainly from books published before the rules had really congealed and the best practices developed.

[MaxWilson]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about something else: the way "homebrew" gets used as a pejorative for rulings sometimes. (As in, "that's not RAW, that's homebrew.")

I tend to agree with you about content, in the sense that I think 5E is bloated already for player options and I'm not looking to add even more. W/rt "broken garbage" though... it's not like the stuff WotC puts out isn't already pretty broken. For example, if I saw the Shepherd Druid in someone's homebrew I would rate it as overpowered and potentially broken.

For me, not adding homebrew classes/feats/etc. is more about parsimony than about power levels.

[stoutstien]

just for kicks here a few home brews that i've found to be spot on.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LAEn6ZdC6lYUKhQ67Qk artificer with a ton of subclass options.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pdYIcfHauwNDM2My1XeWFYSDA/view?usp=sharing 4-element monk with more options and better ki cost

adding expanded spell list for PHB ranger sub classes is a common one.

higher level battle master maneuvers or ways to upgrade them.

i agree that a lot of stuff that actually gets published is closer to causing power creep than its home-brewed counter part. i'm looking at you hexblade

[strangebloke]

Homebrew for players in fine, but TBH unless I was doing something very off-the-norm thematically I wouldn't add any base classes. Homebrew I've allowed has typically been balance certain options.

IE, I nerfed sharpshooter because it Imbalances the relationship between melee and range. I disallowed healing spirit because it destroys HP attrition.

I also added means for two/unarmed fighting to be passable.

Obviously I use pretty much my own setting, monsters, items. That's all necessary to keep things interesting for me.

[Pelle]

I kind of cringe when "homebrew" is used in a rpg context. Homebrew is what I do when I make beer...

[Grod_The_Giant]

Depends on the source of the Homebrew. There's a few people out there that I really good at it as far as balance and flavor are concerned.
This. If you show me something, I'm happy to take a look at it. Or if there's a concept you want that isn't quite covered by existing material, I'm happy to write you something to taste. I'd rather have you play exactly the character you want than a reflavored mess of official material that only sort of fits.

(But, uh... I may (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/267038/Grods-Guide-to-Greatness) be (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions) biased (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/268061/STaRS-The-Simple-Tabletop-Roleplaying-System)).

[JNAProductions]

I'll agree with that strongly. I would allow most done by Grod, JNAProduction, or Kryx on here.

Aw, thanks! :)

But yeah, when it comes to homebrew (including my own-I've made some stinkers in the past) I'll be critical of it, but so long as it's balanced and doesn't clash with the setting... Go nuts!

[Yora]

I'm a homebrew GM.

Though I can't say I ever used much homebrew by other people. The only things I am using now is a slot-based encumbrance system and pointcrawl maps for overland travel.

[FaerieGodfather]

Only difference between homebrew and 3pp is having a budget for art and layout.

Only difference between 3pp and official material is legal ownership of the trade dress.

[Seclora]

I'm a homebrew GM.

Though I can't say I ever used much homebrew by other people. The only things I am using now is a slot-based encumbrance system and pointcrawl maps for overland travel.

Seconding this. I'm also a homebrew GM.

I make items, classes, and creatures(or reworks of creatures that I felt didn't reflect the source material). I'll even allow my players to make a few things, pending approval.
That being said, I don't generally allow outside homebrew. Some of it is fine, fun even, but much of it is just awful.

[War_lord]

If it's either A. a new race from scratch B. a new class or C. hacking up the entire rulebook to try and turn D&D into a modern game or something equally unfitting I do.

But otherwise that word is so broad I can't draw assumptions from that.

[jjordan]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.Yeah, I cringe when people bring homebrew to the table. I'm not opposed to homebrew, I just find it's usually optimized for a setting and, taken out of the setting, doesn't fit. I try to talk to the player and ask questions about what they like about the content and what they're trying to achieve and then work with them to get in done in the context of the setting.

[suplee215]

As a DM I rarely allow players to bring homebrews in but I do try to compromise and things. I had a player who found a broken animated armor that gave a lot of immunities and I told them they can use the UA warforged for it. I also due to having guns in my setting use the Matt Mercer Gunslinger (unsure how the general feel of it is for other but it feels homebrew) and I homebrewed 2 other subclasses based off of it (for a ranger and rogue who uses guns). A lot of it comes down to the players. Players who tend to theory craft how to break the game I will never allow to bring a homebrew.

[MrStabby]

Well it depends. There is some good stuff out there: not everything id DnDWiki or Middle Finger of Vecna.

That said I never allow 3rd party content at my table. If you want something that is right for your game, right for your plot, your world and your players build it yourself to reflect those needs. Even the good stuff is less likely to be a good fit than something you can build yourself.

As a general rule, if you don't have the skill to build homebrew right for your table then you probably don't have the skills you need to evaluate whether a given piece of 3rd party content is right for your table.

[Kane0]

I’m a ‘brewer, and i’m just as happy to have people bring things for me to bring into a game as I am to hear my stuff is being used somewhere out there.

[MoiMagnus]

Homebrew is a game by itself. Creating new rules and trying to balance them with friends add a new dimension to the game, more precisely, the "game designer" dimension, which I personnally find quite fun.
However, if you don't like this additional dimension of the game, or just find it less interesting than "pure" roleplaying, that's totally understandable.

[Max_Killjoy]

This. If you show me something, I'm happy to take a look at it. Or if there's a concept you want that isn't quite covered by existing material, I'm happy to write you something to taste. I'd rather have you play exactly the character you want than a reflavored mess of official material that only sort of fits.

(But, uh... I may (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/267038/Grods-Guide-to-Greatness) be (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions) biased (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/268061/STaRS-The-Simple-Tabletop-Roleplaying-System)).

See, reasons why I prefer non-class, non-level systems.

(Bold added.)

[MaxWilson]

See, reasons why I prefer non-class, non-level systems.

(Bold added.)

That's pretty much my take on homebrew classes: if I want to play GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy, I'll just play GURPS. The structure built into existing classes is a major part of the value proposition for playing variations of D&D for me, the other part being the magic system. In GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy it's just too easy to hyperspecialize and become insanely good (e.g. broadsword-30) without spending many points, because you have total freedom. You're not forced to spend points on stuff that you should logically be good at but aren't interested in (how do you get preternaturally good at the broadsword without exercising and boosting your Strength and Health?), and eventually I came to view that total freedom as a negative in the context of hack-and-slash dungeon crawls seeking treasure and power over time.

Constraints are a major part of game design--games are only fun because we artificially inflate the difficulty of a task by deliberately avoiding the easy solutions, e.g. in football you don't use flying drones to carry the ball over the other players' heads--and (A)D&D character class/level progression is an interesting constraint. You can't skip straight to Shapechange as a wizard after earning 50,000 XP: you have to learn a whole bunch of lesser spells first, which tend to make Shapechange less attractive in many situations because it's overkill. That's an interesting consequence of the way wizards are constructed in (A)D&D.

Nowadays I feel like total freedom in character creation is only fun/interesting if you abandon character advancement too. If you play GURPS, you shouldn't keep track of character points, period, IMO.

[CantigThimble]

As a general rule of thumb, if a player comes to me and says "I want to do X but can't figure out how to make it work within the rules." Then it's probably fine and I'm happy to work with them to make or find something that gives them what they want. (I also tend to be the rules/build guy in my group anyway so I'll often know how to solve their problem without resorting to homebrew as well)

However, if a player comes to you with: "So I found this homebrew class I want to play..." Most of the time it isn't going to end well. Either the class will be broken or it will interact with other things in a way that breaks them. Or even if it's reasonable they won't know the rules for it well enough and no one will be able to help them remember them.

[Benny89]

Depens on group. If you play with your close friends for last 10 years- you don't give a duck anymore about "balance". You just want to have fun.

So if my friend whom I have ate teeth with in other systems comes to me and asks "can I make DEX barbarian to use that EA with Reckless Attacks because I want to stab people with dual daggers?" then "yeah, whatever, go for it".

New players or unkown group? Nope. Not until I know them well.

[2D8HP]

I do wish most 5e "Homebrew" threads were in the Homebrew Design (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?15-Homebrew-Design) sub-thread, or labeled as "Homebrew" in the thread title, the many threads that amount to "What do you think of changing the [whatever] rule usually annoy me when I realize that's what the thread was about

(full disclosure I have done a thread that could count as that which involved using the magic system rulesfrom one game with the other rules for another game, but neither was 5e D&D).



...I think 5E is bloated already for player options and I'm not looking to add even more....


That's usually my perspective, I'm really not looking for more "Player Options" as the published Classes and Races are more than enough for me, with Ravinca, Xanthar's, and the SCAG I have a confusing amount of options to wade through already!

They're two exceptions where I welcome "Homebrew" though:


Background Features

The ones published by WotC in their adventures such as the ones in Abyss and Annihilation make me crave more - many more.

The other example of "Homebrew" I crave is settings.

I don't want stuff like Matt Mercer's "Gunslinger" Class to use as a player in Faerun - just nope, but classes and races that are ones that fit a setting I like?


I'm a homebrew GM... speak of the demon! :amused:

In short as a player new Background Features are just about the only new player options I'm interested in and frankly if it isn't likely to be accepted by a DM the less I'm interested as going begging isn't fun for me.

New stuff for DM's on the other hand that interests me, just not "Here's some new classes for your players!", nope - move along.

"Here's a cool setting that includes new classes and races!" - now that I'm interested in!

TLDR: The "Homebrew that interests me mostly belongs in the World-Building (
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?57-World-Building) sub-thread.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's pretty much my take on homebrew classes: if I want to play GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy, I'll just play GURPS. The structure built into existing classes is a major part of the value proposition for playing variations of D&D for me, the other part being the magic system. In GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy it's just too easy to hyperspecialize and become insanely good (e.g. broadsword-30) without spending many points, because you have total freedom. You're not forced to spend points on stuff that you should logically be good at but aren't interested in (how do you get preternaturally good at the broadsword without exercising and boosting your Strength and Health?), and eventually I came to view that total freedom as a negative in the context of hack-and-slash dungeon crawls seeking treasure and power over time.

Constraints are a major part of game design--games are only fun because we artificially inflate the difficulty of a task by deliberately avoiding the easy solutions, e.g. in football you don't use flying drones to carry the ball over the other players' heads--and (A)D&D character class/level progression is an interesting constraint. You can't skip straight to Shapechange as a wizard after earning 50,000 XP: you have to learn a whole bunch of lesser spells first, which tend to make Shapechange less attractive in many situations because it's overkill. That's an interesting consequence of the way wizards are constructed in (A)D&D.

Nowadays I feel like total freedom in character creation is only fun/interesting if you abandon character advancement too. If you play GURPS, you shouldn't keep track of character points, period, IMO.

First, I really wish people wouldn't just default GURPS as the end-all, be-all of point-buy systems. There are others out there, and they don't share all its pitfalls. If a character can become that good with a "broadsword" without spending "many" points, consider that the issue might be GURPS, not point-buy.

Second, some of those supposed "pitfalls" in open-ended point-buy systems come because they're as much toolkits as they are complete systems -- some of the constraints and most of the setting/system synchronization aren't spoonfed by the raw system. If someone makes a hyperspecialized character in one of these systems, that's as much on the player and the GM than it is on the system.

Third, there's nothing fun or interesting in being straight-jacketed into a specific set of abilities and strengths that someone else decided were "thematic" or "interconnected, and then having to wait through most of the campaign to get most of them. It's a contrived constraint, not an "interesting challenge". Why the hell should someone who is interested in their character having shapechanging abilities be tied down to a bunch of other unrelated stuff that has nothing to do with the character just to get the shapechanging? (Assuming that such abilities are somehow part of the setting and campaign, obviously).

Fourth, "progression", at least of the steep kind in D&D, is grossly over-rated as a source of enjoyment or challenge. "Power over time", the whole "zero to superhero" thing... is a yawn-fest. The XP rate in something like HERO, or WEG SWd6, was far flatter, at least at the recommended award levels.



Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about something else: the way "homebrew" gets used as a pejorative for rulings sometimes. (As in, "that's not RAW, that's homebrew.")

I tend to agree with you about content, in the sense that I think 5E is bloated already for player options and I'm not looking to add even more. W/rt "broken garbage" though... it's not like the stuff WotC puts out isn't already pretty broken. For example, if I saw the Shepherd Druid in someone's homebrew I would rate it as overpowered and potentially broken.

For me, not adding homebrew classes/feats/etc. is more about parsimony than about power levels.

5e takes a heck of a lot of contortion to make even some pretty basic characters -- multiclassing, reskinning, swapping out main abilities, etc -- and even via that method it often involves not starting them at 1st level just to get the character mapped into the rules.

[Vorpalchicken]

As much as I'd like to keep an open mind, I sadly can not help but cringe. I've only once or twice encountered something home brewed that was not overpowered versus a hundred or more examples of simply disgusting power mad baloney that could have easily used existing legal rules to accomplish the concept.
I'm not really counting UA here but I would say more than half of that is unacceptable too.

[Daghoulish]

So, I have a question for everyone here. I see a lot of people talking about making concepts working in the system rather than a homebrew subclass. I was thinking of talking to my DM about this subclass I found.

https://mfov.magehandpress.com/2017/11/the-great-tree.html (I know mfov, but that's not the point.)

The concept is a character that has a druidic flavor and ability's in a warlock chasis, without the fey pact. As a player I dislike all fey in any iteration of d&d and I would like to add that to the character. Believing that the fey distort nature with their desires and interests and protect it more out of obligation that actual love of the wild.

So how would you help a character make this character work, preferably in a way that's not ham stringed.

[Raiki]

Hi playground, long time homebrewer, first time poster (in this thread).

Personally, I love homebrewing, and I've been doing it for a decade and a half or so. Almost entirely for my own games, since I GM much more often than I play. But even with all that experience, I do think it's a last resort. If one of my players comes to me with a request, I'll see what I can do first with refluffing currently existing rules before I bust out the hops. But if nothing in the game fits mechanically, or if a player comes to the table with someone else's brew, I'm always happy to sit down and work out between myself and the player a way for them to bring their idea to life. Obviously, if a player shows up asking to play a class that flies and adds 3 stats to attack rolls from level 2, I'll send that **** packing, but the concept of homebrew itself isn't a problem unless the GM lets it be.

I do have to say, though, that this:



...I think 5E is bloated already for player options and I'm not looking to add even more.

made my jaw hit the floor. Maybe it's that I'm an old man who grew up playing 3.5, but part of the reason I so seldomly play is that I always feel like I'm wearing a straitjacket when I build a character in 5e. Compared to the veritable smorgasbord of choice offered in older editions, what we have now feels like the bones of a game with no meat on them.


But that's not the point of the thread. OP, homebrew, like most things D&D, is really a table by table thing. I'd let someone homebrew a class long before I'd let them play Pun-Pun or even a Sentinel Bladelock. To me, it's worth considering any option that seems likely to add fun to the game, and I'm too old and stubborn to let WotC make that decision for us.

[FaerieGodfather]

Third, there's nothing fun or interesting in being straight-jacketed into a specific set of abilities and strengths that someone else decided were "thematic" or "interconnected, and then having to wait through most of the campaign to get most of them.

I'm not a fan of point-buy systems, but I really enjoy Rogue Genius Games' Genius Guide to the Talented (Class) series because they allow PF class and archetype powers to be purchased in discrete chunks at specific levels. If Archetypes were intended to replace Prestige Classes as the source of character differentiation-- to the vast benefit of Pathinder-- these are the logical next step.

The abilities are still gated behind specifiic classes and levels... but there's wiggle room for a player and DM to bend the rules to fit.

My main issue is that it doesn't address the elephant in the room, that the 3.X/PF/5e "pick a class each level" multiclassing rules are the reason for many of the bad class design decisions in these games, and that the rules themselves are nonsensical, dysfunctional, and actively detrimental to all three games that feature them.


Fourth, "progression", at least of the steep kind in D&D, is grossly over-rated as a source of enjoyment or challenge. "Power over time", the whole "zero to superhero" thing... is a yawn-fest. The XP rate in something like HERO, or WEG SWd6, was far flatter, at least at the recommended award levels.

Speak for yourself. This is one of the primary reasons I prefer D&Dalikes to other fantasy RPG systems.

[2D8HP]

...Maybe it's that I'm an old man who grew up playing 3.5, but part of the reason I so seldomly play is that I always feel like I'm wearing a straitjacket when I build a character in 5e. Compared to the veritable smorgasbord of choice offered in older editions, what we have now feels like the bones of a game with no meat on them....


Well I'm a middle-aged man who grew up on 0e D&D, 1e AD&D, and B/X, and the first version of D&D that I encountered was the 48 pages of the "bluebook" which had four classes, and four races and to me the many classes, sub-classes, races and sub-races of 5e seems like a lot to me!

[MaxWilson]

made my jaw hit the floor. Maybe it's that I'm an old man who grew up playing 3.5, but part of the reason I so seldomly play is that I always feel like I'm wearing a straitjacket when I build a character in 5e.

You might not be as old as you think, kid. But I can certainly believe that 3.5 influenced your thinking. I skipped 3E entirely and barely played 4E but my impression is that they were even more WotCish than 5E in terms of class bloat. I'm not as old as some but to me there are fundamentally only four character classes: fighter, mage, thief, and priest. 5E's twelve already seems like a lot, especially when they're mostly just variations on those four.

[Marywn]

Honestly... I love homebrew, and it adds alot to the world that the GM wants to show.
Here's the catch....IF ITS BALANCED. As a player that likes fairness in all aspects of roleplaying games, giving options and things to everyone else. If something homebrewed is broken, even slightly unless you have a good group with you, some player will eventually figure it out.
And I can say from experience, Its not fun to fight a broken monster/class/player beating you down and you cant do absolute crap about it.*Cough Cough*Shot at from 700ft away*Cough Cough*

[Jerrykhor]

How can one hate homebrew? Didn't WotC came out and said that dnd is recommended to be homebrewed? How about UA then? Have you seen the Lore Wizard or Mystic? Don't tell me UA is considered homebrew, because it is not.

Anyways, I think OP's opinion is even more cringe-worthy than homebrew. Like most things, there are both bad and good, unless its from dandiwiki, then its probably bad.

[Kalashak]

I generally tell people no homebrew when I run games, it keeps most people from trying it and the people I trust enough to find something usually know they can ask me about it if they find something they like.

[Marywn]

How can one hate homebrew? Didn't WotC came out and said that dnd is recommended to be homebrewed? How about UA then? Have you seen the Lore Wizard or Mystic? Don't tell me UA is considered homebrew, because it is not.

Anyways, I think OP's opinion is even more cringe-worthy than homebrew. Like most things, there are both bad and good, unless its from dandiwiki, then its probably bad.

Well, there are some actually quality stuff on dandiwiki, you kinda just have to sift. Really hard.

[TyGuy]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.
Well, reflavoring small changes like damage type is homebrew so...

[noob]

The odds of someone finding a non broken class on dnd homebrew are low.
It is nearly lower than the odds of me making a grammatically correct sentence.

[AvatarVecna]

I'll agree with that strongly. I would allow most done by Grod, JNAProduction, or Kryx on here.

Most yeah. I know at least JNA has some...questionable balance choices hiding in their enormous backlog of homebrew. :smalltongue:


Sturgeon's law applies to homebrew as much as anything else.

Including first party content.

[Jerrykhor]

Well, there are some actually quality stuff on dandiwiki, you kinda just have to sift. Really hard.

Well, I did say 'probably'.

[Nightgaun7]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.

The whole game is just some homebrew that other people paid for.

[Nightgaun7]

...and barely played 4E but my impression is that they were even more WotCish than 5E in terms of class bloat. I'm not as old as some but to me there are fundamentally only four character classes: fighter, mage, thief, and priest. 5E's twelve already seems like a lot, especially when they're mostly just variations on those four.
4E was explicitly designed around those four with different wrappers.

[Arkhios]

4E was explicitly designed around those four with different wrappers.

Can't really argue with that, having played all editions since 3.0 (+ a surface scrape of AD&D thanks to Black Isle Studios).

4e was, indeed, built around the generic concept of having four character roles: Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker. They just had a bloat of different covers for the four roles.




As for the topic, like Grod, JNAProductions, and Kryx, I may be heavily biased because I'm an avid homebrewer as well (for those who don't know me and my 'brews, I aim to both experiment with new mechanics but also balance them against existing official materials. I'm very self-critical towards reaching those goals.)

However, if we put aside our prejudices for a while, it's always worthwhile to keep open-minded and at least take a look at a homebrew if a player brought one up. Or, if you're like us, brew something yourself if an existing class or other rules aspect isn't satisfying the wants and needs enough.

[Chronos]

Where I cringe is when I see someone referring to something from "the official SRD", when their link is to dandwiki. You'd think that, by the odds, with all of the homebrew on that site, some of it would have to be good...

[Marywn]

Where I cringe is when I see someone referring to something from "the official SRD", when their link is to dandwiki. You'd think that, by the odds, with all of the homebrew on that site, some of it would have to be good...
Some is, just... its hard to find, also when someone shows me something and it takes me to dandwiki I take a quick glance at the page, and if its not hot garbage on first inspection I get interested. But i always make sure to give it a more throughout read after the first one.

[Shuruke]

For me anytime I hear

"Fumble charts"

"Home brew lingering injuries."
(Example death saves never going away and staying till character dies. Ie if u go down three times to 0 in a year or lifetime your dead)

Most homebrew worlds

[MrStabby]

For me anytime I hear

"Fumble charts"

"Home brew lingering injuries."
(Example death saves never going away and staying till character dies. Ie if u go down three times to 0 in a year or lifetime your dead)

Most homebrew worlds

Hmm. Interesting.

Homebrew worlds and monsters don't bother me at all actually. I figure homebrew worlds are pretty subjective whereas things like homebrew classes can be better or worse than other classes in measurable ways. Even when they have subjective elements I feel they are more likely to be agreed on.

Worlds on the other hand would seem to be a lot more to taste. For example I have no desire to play in a world with artificers and magitech, or at least not with a steampunk vibe to it. Nevertheless I see a decent number of people clamouring for elements like this in their games.


I run homebrew worlds for all my campaigns. Some of this is to give me an excuse to create. Much of it is I don't want to be forced to learn the lore of the setting better than anyone else at the table or have Lore Lawyers tell me the world I am running is not like that. It also stops players using OOC knowledge to solve in game problems. I just hope my players see things the same!

[breckdogg]

YES, when I hear anyone say that they're using homebrew in an actual game, I cringe. Unless it's the DM using monsters, NPC's, etc. One of the players in my group is so bad about it, they're using a Mystic (UA, but still op as h*ck) and then a homebrew race. They haven't finished the race, but it's a blob of wierd space-time that can somehow daun armor and weapons. I have a feeling they're going to make it a wee bit overpowered.

[Keravath]

Depends what you mean by "homebrew".

There are homebrewed rules and homebrewed content.

Homebrewed content, in my opinion, is the norm. People create their own campaigns, their own worlds, their own NPCs. These worlds may work on their own rules, each one is likely unique with their own style, flavour and fluff. The DM may use the base D&D rules to create NPCs and their abilities or they might not. The world might or might not follow the same rules as the NPCs. Monsters and the world are the purview of the DM and it is quite likely that some or all of this can be tweaked or "homebrewed" as needed to fit the campaign.

On the other hand, homebrewed rules that apply to the PCs are a different situation. Some DMs love to create new options for the players to use. New classes, new archetypes, new spells, new weapon rules, new armor rules, more details, less details, almost anything. The difference here is that the players interact directly with these changes.

Homebrewed rules are a mixed bag. Some add complexity without making the game more fun in general. Some add interesting but unbalanced options. Some homebrewed rules try to address whatever the DM thinks/feels are problems for their games. The results are generally hit and miss. Some rules modifications or additions can be fun and interesting or add unique flavour while others fall flat in practice. One of the main reasons for the mixed results is that DMs typically work on their own and so the changes which sound cool don't actually see much in the way of actual playtesting to see how they work in practice with a range of players in different campaigns.

Anyway, I don't cringe when I hear "homebrew" but I will look at any rules modifications quite closely before joining such a campaign to see whether it is something I'd like to play.

This also extends to the campaign material or campaign type that a DM is running and if it isn't something that is fun then I won't waste my time or the DMs playing it. As an example, I joined a low magic campaign once which sounded like it could be fun. All the PCs started off as a squad of castle guards. One character was allowed to have some magic (not sure why) but basically the rest of us were men at arms (basic fighters). So we hung out at the barracks, trained, went out on patrols, trained, drank beer, captured some poachers ... we did this for something like three play sessions. Did you know that life as a medieval castle guard was boring and tedious? If I didn't know that before starting this campaign, I certainly did afterward. However, the issue was really what the DM envisaged for the campaign. I think one of their interests was medieval history so they based a D&D game on their interest and although they may have found the details fascinating, this was not the case for most of the players. This is an example of homebrewed content (rather than rules) gone awry, so it can happen :).

[Toofey]

Homebrew is sadly almost always terrible, then when you as DM work really hard to make something balanced people are almost never into it. It's just a world of frustration.

[Tetrasodium]

I think the fact that there is nothing between "WotC published this official thing" and "homebrew" is a huge problem because of the fact that a lot of community made stuff is very good & in some cases extremely high quality but still gets maligned with the wtf stuff.


I'm a homebrew GM.

Though I can't say I ever used much homebrew by other people. The only things I am using now is a slot-based encumbrance system and pointcrawl maps for overland travel.

That sounds interesting, how does it work?

[MilkmanDanimal]

Do I cringe? No. Do I giggle and await the trainwreck that is about to unfold in front of me? Oh, GOD YES. Homebrew classes and races are almost invariably ridiculous, unbalanced train wrecks that so frequently are attempts to emulate characters from TV shows, movies, or games I know nothing about, and they're designed to adhere more closely to those concepts than any sense of balance. I saw one on Reddit a few weeks back that gave one Time Stop a long rest at 17th level, and three of them per SHORT rest as the level 20 capstone. There was a Divine Rogue that had all sorts of insane bonuses, and could Guidance everything, including combat rolls. Someone was recently complaining that their game seemed unbalanced because they'd given their low-level characters weapons dealing 1d20 damage, and I just saw one where a Monk was allowed to use two greatswords as finesse weapons at once.

There is undoubtedly decent homebrew out there, and in my campaign with multiple DMs, homebrew items can be created, and every one of them can be vetoed. Classes and races are outright banned, because there's just too much potential impact there. At this point, fair or no, I just assume every homebrew race or class is some unbalanced, overpowered fanboy creation, and I just don't have time to deal with it anymore.

[Man_Over_Game]

Or, if you're like us, brew something yourself if an existing class or other rules aspect isn't satisfying the wants and needs enough.

Homebrewing is like multiclassing. Don't do it, unless you have a reason to. A lot of players forget that, and try to introduce some weird subclass that's never been playtested or reviewed critically.

That being said, there are a lot of things missing (tactical melee combat, skills are garbage, not enough Wisdom-class multiclassing, not enough Intelligence classes) that some good homebrewing can solve, but I always think that's the first step. Find what needs to be fixed and solve that problem first.

If someone wants to play some kind of dark magic knight that corrupts others, you have to first ask why the Conquest or Vengeance Paladins, Death Clerics, Hexblade Warlock, Spore Druids, Eldritch Knight + Abjurer/Fiendlock, etc. don't work.

[Tharkun]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.
I think this thread is filled with conflating the bad with the good.

Reflavoring is basically homebrew. My personal take is that I use almost entirely RAW with a few exceptions. Everything needs to go by me. But I am an old DM, been playing since the 70s.

Homebrew multiverse is basically the standard for me. I use the D&D multiverse framework and then populate the outer planes with all my stuff. The campaign homeworld is always a version of something that I have made my own. This is the norm as it is the only way for PCs to have real impact on sociopolitical structures. Every adventure is either my own or bits cribbed from a published module or book. My monsters are often custom and I have to be careful because sometimes you can build a scenario that will really punish your PCs. I built a scenario with a lot monster controlling PC movement (cultists with eldritch blast pushing/pulling, 4 arm grapple apes) and environmental hazards. That scenario can be truly punishing to PCs who aren't tactical and careful.

To be honest, RAW is pretty powerful. Spells like Wish, Clone, and Simulacrum are crazy. The real issues are to make sure there is parity. Don't let PCs have races that don't exist to oppose them as well. Don't borrow social constructs from Eberron without actually playing in or accessing Eberron regularly. I draw the lines pretty carefully and the content I use is always vetted.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I find it mildly interesting sad that opinions seem to be sorted into "I like to homebrew stuff, I'm fine using it if it looks reasonable" and "ugh no, homebrew is almost always overpowered crap being used maliciously." To the contrary, the vast majority of creators I've seen on this forum, at least, do their best to keep things balanced. And are usually writing it in the first place because there's a conceptual niche or mechanical concept that's difficult to express properly with existing material, not just because "I wanna be strong lol."

Like, the stuff in Grod's Guide? That came out of a thread about things still missing in 5e. Every class, every subclass, every feat was designed to patch a hole. It's hard to play a dedicated summoner in the ranges most people actually play in? Let me make a base class to let you do that from the start. Mundane healing options only weakly supported? Ta-da, have a subclass focused on exactly that. No Druids who focus on bugs, or draconic servitors, or truly monstrous transforming barbarians? Subclasses for everyone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Homebrewing is like multiclassing. Don't do it, unless you have a reason to. A lot of players forget that, and try to introduce some weird subclass that's never been playtested or reviewed critically.


I think this is way too focused on a particular issue--a player proposing a homebrew class written fresh for that use.

Things I've seen homebrewed:
* classes: I've written a few. But they've never seen play except when being play-tested.

* sub-classes: I've written a few and some players have written a few. But again, they've always been play-tested in one-shots or the similar and tweaked.

* spells: these I'm looser about, but they've usually just been palette swaps or blenderizing previous spells.

* races: I've written a lot. But they've been about fitting the setting, and they're often weaker than the stock ones. [1]

* items: I use these a lot, all made for my setting and people.

* monsters: This is where I accept 3PP published stuff. But I still check it before using it (having been burned).

* setting material: My setting is entirely homebrew. Not even the base cosmology is the same. The stats for the races are (mostly) the same, but all the everything else is different.

5e relies on homebrew. It's not even "improper" or "optional"--the base rules assume that you will be creating your own content for the game. The monsters are explicitly just examples, as are the items. The DMG spends most of its space talking about how you can modify things to suit your world; the PHB opens with "talk to your DM, it's his world".

So saying that homebrew should be avoided where possible is not consonant with this edition's basic assumptions.

[MrStabby]

I find it mildly interesting sad that opinions seem to be sorted into "I like to homebrew stuff, I'm fine using it if it looks reasonable" and "ugh no, homebrew is almost always overpowered crap being used maliciously." To the contrary, the vast majority of creators I've seen on this forum, at least, do their best to keep things balanced. And are usually writing it in the first place because there's a conceptual niche or mechanical concept that's difficult to express properly with existing material, not just because "I wanna be strong lol."

Like, the stuff in Grod's Guide? That came out of a thread about things still missing in 5e. Every class, every subclass, every feat was designed to patch a hole. It's hard to play a dedicated summoner in the ranges most people actually play in? Let me make a base class to let you do that from the start. Mundane healing options only weakly supported? Ta-da, have a subclass focused on exactly that. No Druids who focus on bugs, or draconic servitors, or truly monstrous transforming barbarians? Subclasses for everyone.

Actually the homebrew section here used to be pretty good (I haven't been there for years so can't comment on what it is like now). Well better than most places. In reality this is not surprising, if you look at the top page. Those elements that get commented on are likely to stay on the front page. Those elements that get commented on are getting input and checks. As importantly the input they are getting is from a diverse group of people. Homebrew made by a single individual or a small group that have experienced the same campaigns tends to be a lot worse in my experience.

I think it is also worth splitting out what is being homebrewed.

Homebrewed classes are the worst. Homebrewed races are a little better. Homebrewed backgrounds are more often than not pretty good.

Homebrewed monsters are usually very good from what I have seen. It may be that I just don't like a lot of stuff in the MM or it may be that people homebrew for what they want so get greedy.

The likelihood of it being good is pretty strongly related to what it is.

[Yora]

Homebrew monsters are not really affected by balance. They can have a misleading CR listed, but that's about it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think this is way too focused on a particular issue--a player proposing a homebrew class written fresh for that use.

Things I've seen homebrewed:
* classes: I've written a few. But they've never seen play except when being play-tested.

* sub-classes: I've written a few and some players have written a few. But again, they've always been play-tested in one-shots or the similar and tweaked.

* spells: these I'm looser about, but they've usually just been palette swaps or blenderizing previous spells.

* races: I've written a lot. But they've been about fitting the setting, and they're often weaker than the stock ones. [1]

* items: I use these a lot, all made for my setting and people.

* monsters: This is where I accept 3PP published stuff. But I still check it before using it (having been burned).

* setting material: My setting is entirely homebrew. Not even the base cosmology is the same. The stats for the races are (mostly) the same, but all the everything else is different.

5e relies on homebrew. It's not even "improper" or "optional"--the base rules assume that you will be creating your own content for the game. The monsters are explicitly just examples, as are the items. The DMG spends most of its space talking about how you can modify things to suit your world; the PHB opens with "talk to your DM, it's his world".

So saying that homebrew should be avoided where possible is not consonant with this edition's basic assumptions.

I didn't express the message right, that was my bad.

The point I was trying to make was to always know what the explicit goal is for the homebrew.

For example, say you want to make a homebrew healing potion. Ask yourself why the original wasn't good enough, maybe due to things like:


It costs an action.
There are not very good rules on crafting them.
They don't heal enough.
They heal too much.
They're too random.
They're not random enough.
They're too expensive.
They're too cheap.
They're uninteresting.
They lack side effects and I'm making a gritty game.


Whenever you recreate something, you risk missing an important step that reflects poorly with the balance. For example, making a healing potion that you can consume with a bonus action inadvertently makes the Healing Kit worse, while also causing Thief Rogue lose value on its primary feature (exacerbated by the fact that healing kits are worse). A small change to healing potions might mean that you've effectively erased a subclass from seeing play.

And those problems might be things that you're comfortable with, but they always need to be thought about. Consider how often Healing Word is chosen over Cure Wounds, and recognize that you're basically creating the same scenario. That isn't saying that the offiical balance is always perfect (HW vs. CW as an example), but at least these flaws are flaws that we know and are unlikely to catch you by surprise.




I've recreated stealth, changed how to use skills, implemented Short Rests in the middle of combat, created a mechanic to inflict short-term Exhaustion in combat, and created a method to allow classes to use different attributes for features while allowing multiclassing. Believe me when I say that I enjoy making Homebrew stuff.

But I think the bad rap that homebrew stuff gets is because people change stuff for little reason rather than focusing on fixing a particular problem. Because, in the end, every homebrewery has the universal problem of not being familiar, being harder to learn, and slowing down the game to learn the changes compared to the standard rules. Every homebrew introduces, at least, that one (small) problem, so make sure that the homebrew you're adding solves at least one first before considering it. Don't use my homebrew stuff unless it fixes a problem that you have.

Otherwise, you're adding more problems than you're solving.

[stoutstien]

I didn't express the message right, that was my bad.

The point I was trying to make was to always know what the explicit goal is for the homebrew.

For example, say you want to make a homebrew healing potion. Ask yourself why the original wasn't good enough, maybe due to things like:


It costs an action.
There are not very good rules on crafting them.
They don't heal enough.
They heal too much.
They're too random.
They're not random enough.
They're too expensive.
They're too cheap.
They're uninteresting.
They lack side effects and I'm making a gritty game.


Whenever you recreate something, you risk missing an important step that reflects poorly with the balance. For example, making a healing potion that you can consume with a bonus action inadvertently makes the Healing Kit worse, while also causing Thief Rogue lose value on its primary feature (exacerbated by the fact that healing kits are worse). A small change to healing potions might mean that you've effectively erased a subclass from seeing play.

And those problems might be things that you're comfortable with, but they always need to be thought about. Consider how often Healing Word is chosen over Cure Wounds, and recognize that you're basically creating the same scenario. That isn't saying that the offiical balance is always perfect (HW vs. CW as an example), but at least these flaws are flaws that we know and are unlikely to catch you by surprise.




I've recreated stealth, changed how to use skills, implemented Short Rests in the middle of combat, created a mechanic to inflict short-term Exhaustion in combat, and created a method to allow classes to use different attributes for features while allowing multiclassing. Believe me when I say that I enjoy making Homebrew stuff.

But I think the bad rap that homebrew stuff gets is because people change stuff for little reason rather than focusing on fixing a particular problem. Because, in the end, every homebrewery has the universal problem of not being familiar, being harder to learn, and slowing down the game to learn the changes compared to the standard rules. Every homebrew introduces, at least, that one (small) problem, so make sure that the homebrew you're adding solves at least one first before considering it. Don't use my homebrew stuff unless it fixes a problem that you have.

Otherwise, you're adding more problems than you're solving.

it's very true if you do a lot of homebrewing you look like the crazy guy with the papers all over the wall with a string spun from pin-to-pin looking for patterns in ask Cathy that explains why they never fix the hot dog to hot dog bun ratio issue.

[MrStabby]

I didn't express the message right, that was my bad.

The point I was trying to make was to always know what the explicit goal is for the homebrew.

For example, say you want to make a homebrew healing potion. Ask yourself why the original wasn't good enough, maybe due to things like:


It costs an action.
There are not very good rules on crafting them.
They don't heal enough.
They heal too much.
They're too random.
They're not random enough.
They're too expensive.
They're too cheap.
They're uninteresting.
They lack side effects and I'm making a gritty game.


Whenever you recreate something, you risk missing an important step that reflects poorly with the balance. For example, making a healing potion that you can consume with a bonus action inadvertently makes the Healing Kit worse, while also causing Thief Rogue lose value on its primary feature (exacerbated by the fact that healing kits are worse). A small change to healing potions might mean that you've effectively erased a subclass from seeing play.

And those problems might be things that you're comfortable with, but they always need to be thought about. Consider how often Healing Word is chosen over Cure Wounds, and recognize that you're basically creating the same scenario. That isn't saying that the offiical balance is always perfect (HW vs. CW as an example), but at least these flaws are flaws that we know and are unlikely to catch you by surprise.




I've recreated stealth, changed how to use skills, implemented Short Rests in the middle of combat, created a mechanic to inflict short-term Exhaustion in combat, and created a method to allow classes to use different attributes for features while allowing multiclassing. Believe me when I say that I enjoy making Homebrew stuff.

But I think the bad rap that homebrew stuff gets is because people change stuff for little reason rather than focusing on fixing a particular problem. Because, in the end, every homebrewery has the universal problem of not being familiar, being harder to learn, and slowing down the game to learn the changes compared to the standard rules. Every homebrew introduces, at least, that one (small) problem, so make sure that the homebrew you're adding solves at least one first before considering it. Don't use my homebrew stuff unless it fixes a problem that you have.

Otherwise, you're adding more problems than you're solving.


I think this is actually what we see a lot of: can we use X class with Y spell list? Can class W use Q as a casting stat?

The "problem" looking for a fix is that someone can't make the character they want with the available material, or that their theme doesn't seem fun in practice as it is pretty poor at an optimised (or near optimised) table.

These swaps are close to a fix and will generally preserve balance, or at least be a pretty good starting point for balance but are a step towards exploring that theme.


Then there are other elements. For example I love the theme of the druid - ish, but dont like a lot of the features so it is my current homebrew project. It is a relatively major piece of work simply because when I strip out the spells I don't like the list is sparse. Most of the work has been 'brewing a LOAD of extra spells so the class works with a tighter focus. Much of these are not aiming to solve a specific problem, or not by how I think you mean it. The problem is the class flavour and focus doesnt match my image, so I look to rework as a personal project.

Other things I do and thought experiments: I did a pale master class a few years ago to experiment with 2/3rds caster progression. No "problem" just exploration.

Some homebrew to problem solve, others to explore.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Other things I do and thought experiments: I did a pale master class a few years ago to experiment with 2/3rds caster progression. No "problem" just exploration.

Some homebrew to problem solve, others to explore.

Yeah. I've done lots of homebrew that was "what if I try...this?". It's likely never going to see the light of play (at least in that form), but it's suggestive and illustrative. Even if what it illustrates is that doing that particular thing is hard/stupid/ugly.

For example, I sliced-and-diced all the spell lists, reconfiguring all the spells into new "thematic" lists that are much shorter but more evocative of a theme. The idea would be for each class to get a choice of several themes, but then be restricted to those chosen themes from there on.

I've used it to guide my NPC spell suggestions, but I doubt it would ever be a player-side option.

Same with my extensive new culture-based sub-races. And several classes that I've written. Or the large collection of "NPC" spells/magic types (including a blood/soul magic and a peasant magic). They're just there to help me understand what's going on in the setting. Some are more mechanized than others; some are just descriptive.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. For spells and homebrew classes/subclasses? Mostly, yes, what I have seen is rarely worth accepting.

I have tried very few homebrew things, and the one I posted hear that I thought was OK had some serious holes in it. (Thanks Playground! :smallsmile: )
Nobody brings a homebrew to my table and gets to play it unless we sit down before the play session and walk our way through it together. (Between you folks and RPG.SE analysis of a variety of homebrew things, I am learning how to spot "nopes" better).

Homebrewed spells: Similar.

But good homebrew can be fun.

Context:
There was a metric crap ton of home brew stuff in the game for the first 15 years it existed. Before AD&D 2e came about. Loads of it flowed in from Dragon Magazine articles. Some of it was good, a lot of it was rubbish and overpowered. You can say that I grew up with homebrew being ubiquitous, and of widely varying quality.

We tried all kinds of stuff; some of it was fine, and some of it became obviously a mess.

[MaxWilson]

Like, the stuff in Grod's Guide? That came out of a thread about things still missing in 5e. Every class, every subclass, every feat was designed to patch a hole. It's hard to play a dedicated summoner in the ranges most people actually play in? Let me make a base class to let you do that from the start. Mundane healing options only weakly supported? Ta-da, have a subclass focused on exactly that. No Druids who focus on bugs, or draconic servitors, or truly monstrous transforming barbarians? Subclasses for everyone.

I prefer to patch those holes by adding world elements (low-level summoning spells a la Summon Greater Demon, or equipment options) or rule variants (more complete grappling rules that allow you to gag/incapacitate after grappling) instead of classes. Elegantly-designed rules scale better than ad hoc class options.

If you want to play the guy who puts enemies in a headlock and breaks their neck, I'll work with you to make that happen, but it's not thing to be a Wrestling Master subclass. It's probably going to be a high-Str Champion, possibly with Prodigy (Athletics), interacting via the Dungeon Grappling rules. You'll end up being good at headlocks, but also good at other things like broadswords as a byproduct.

[Mikal]

Not nearly as much as I cringe when a dm creates house rules to “balance” things that aren’t unbalanced, they just don’t like them.

I’ll listen to 10 homebrewed classes over any single “rules balancing” act any day

[Yakmala]

Depends on how you define Homebrew.

Are you talking game mechanics only or also creatures, setting, lore, etc?

I started playing in 1978 with a white box with three tan softcover books with sloppy formatting and a scarcity of rules. I created my own campaign setting. I might sometimes insert an existing module into the setting (usually Judge's Guild stuff) where appropriate, with whichever changes were needed to suit the campaign.

This was all pre-Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms/Eberron. Greyhawk and Blackmoor existed, barely, as small softcover booklets.

As the game expanded to become 1st edition AD&D and then eventually 2nd edition, I just kept using my campaign. My friends who DM'd were pretty much the same.

So I guess you could say everything I've done in 35+ years, with the exception of my recent participation in Adventurer's League, has been Homebrew.

What most people call Homebrew, is what I call Dungeons and Dragons. To me, Adventurer's League, with it's bizarre limitations and counter-intuitive rules, is the aberration.

[Timur18]

I cringe a bit depending on the person.

I always find it interesting to learn about cause it really shows what a person loves or hates about certain races, classes, and settings.

I’m a fan of homebrew settings until it feels too derivative from other works.

Homebrew classes are a hard pass unless I really know the person and know they strive for balance. Too often classes are created to fit what they think is awesome and leaves others underpowered.

I do like homebrew spells though. A lot of fun can be had there.

[Raiki]

Far too many people to quote, but I'd like to make one quick point about "Content Bloat": It's not a thing.

When I was younger and angrier and even remotely interested in edition wars, this was the argument that bothered me the most, and I still don't love it. There is always the option to use less of a system than is published, but it's impossible to use more without homebrew or third party content. Which, incidentally, is why I'm so supportive of 'brewing.

The last game I ran (which was 5e), there was a player who really wanted to revive his old character from a game I ran in the aughts. The only problem is that he was an Incarnate, and 5e has no mechanics that even remotely resemble Magic of Incarnum. So we sat down for an hour and brewed up some rules. It was simple, it wasn't unbalanced because he wasn't trying to minmax, and it made the player happy. Where's the harm in that?

[Kane0]

The last game I ran (which was 5e), there was a player who really wanted to revive his old character from a game I ran in the aughts. The only problem is that he was an Incarnate, and 5e has no mechanics that even remotely resemble Magic of Incarnum. So we sat down for an hour and brewed up some rules. It was simple, it wasn't unbalanced because he wasn't trying to minmax, and it made the player happy. Where's the harm in that?

I'm interested in Incarnum content if you happen to have it written down somewhere?

[Raiki]

I'm interested in Incarnum content if you happen to have it written down somewhere?

I do, but I'm out of town for a few days. I'll track down my notepad file when I get home and send it to you. It's only for the Incarnate, and it's pretty rough, but it's serviceable.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I've seen some homebrew that bugged the heck out of me for 3.5, namely the "15 Down" method of ability score generation my DM in college used. Your most important stat was set at 15, and then you added numbers in descending order to your other stats, resulting in the following array before racial modifiers:

15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

And this was coupled with rules where level advancement was achieved through completing game sessions, but if you died and got raised, you didn't get the level up at the end of the session. I basically had to beg him for exceptions to this rule because he'd given me a treasure that I could only open at a specific level, and I kept dying because I was a paladin and kept charging into melee with big ugly monsters. I'm glad he's at least a nice guy and sent a trio of angels to resurrect me for free once or twice.

For 5e, though, most of what I've seen that's "homebrew" has been side-projects written by the likes of Keith Baker or Robert J. Schwalb, people who at least know what they're doing in terms of game design. If the creator of Eberron releases a PDF of homebrew stuff he's collaborated on with other game designers, so you can play Eberron in 5e more easily, then I trust his judgment.

[Arkhios]

I've seen some homebrew that bugged the heck out of me for 3.5, namely the "15 Down" method of ability score generation my DM in college used. Your most important stat was set at 15, and then you added numbers in descending order to your other stats, resulting in the following array before racial modifiers:

15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

Honestly, I fail to see what's the issue with those stats? That's better than standard array (both in 3.5 and 5e), and it's a simple (and honestly, quite generous) houserule, rather than a homebrew per sé.


And this was coupled with rules where level advancement was achieved through completing game sessions, but if you died and got raised, you didn't get the level up at the end of the session. I basically had to beg him for exceptions to this rule because he'd given me a treasure that I could only open at a specific level, and I kept dying because I was a paladin and kept charging into melee with big ugly monsters. I'm glad he's at least a nice guy and sent a trio of angels to resurrect me for free once or twice.
Basically a milestone advancement. Besides, in 3.5, if you died, you lost a level anyway when brought back to life, regardless of the means. Again, I find this method is just fine and in line with the above houserule.
Also, being what you described a warrior charging into melee with big ugly monsters is pretty much the whole reason why you may get killed often (which is why you should invest in AC a LOT -- obviously not forgetting your HP).


For 5e, though, most of what I've seen that's "homebrew" has been side-projects written by the likes of Keith Baker or Robert J. Schwalb, people who at least know what they're doing in terms of game design. If the creator of Eberron releases a PDF of homebrew stuff he's collaborated on with other game designers, so you can play Eberron in 5e more easily, then I trust his judgment.

Slightly unrelated, but who's to say who has experience and knowledge of game design and who doesn't? How can you tell by the name of an author if they have experience or not? For example, I've literally studied game design, but I doubt you've ever heard of me. Does one's lack of publicity automatically mean that they don't know what they're doing? I think not.

[R.Shackleford]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.

My groups specifically play a homebrew game once a month and sometimes we will primarily use homebrew classes in a campaign.

There is some high quality, better than core, homebrew out there.

Here on this site, you will also find some great stuff on reddit's unearthedarcana.

You could make a better 5th edition out of the homebrew, though part of that is due to hindsight.

[Witty Username]

As someone who has played, allowed, and played in games where others have used homebrew, I would ask that anyone wanting to use homebrew should have a strong grasp of RAW first, and then a strong grasp of what the homebrew content is and what it does.

It sounds like most people in this thread would agree with this, but it is my strongest feeling on the subject.

As for homebrew giving me cringe, It depends on who is asking. For example, I have a friend who likes homebrew but he is not got a strong sense of the gameplay bits of D&D. If he says he has an idea for a character, I ask what it is, and he says "its a homebrew" I cringe. This is partly because he hasn't answered my question(if you ask your DM to play a homebrew, please have the homebrew in front of you and be able to describe what it is effectively) but also because he doesn't have a good idea of what is balanced or necessarily how it plays, players like him should probably avoid homebrew, and DM's should carefully consider whether or not to allow homebrew if they have a player like this(because it will mean more work for them). Homebrew for powergaming could be a problem, but I have not had to deal with that being done with intent personally. Know yourself and your playgroup.

[MeeposFire]

Homebrew does not get me to cringe around here that is usually saved for when I see the words strawman or broken.


That being said I always find it interesting that people talk about the overpowered content but more rarely speak about the under powered content. I always find it interesting to see how opinions change over time as when people first see something they will yell overpowered but years later after actually playing over a long period of time it really isn't. As an example from an official source in 3e when the favored soul came out it was decried by many on the boards as being overpowered and broken compared to other classes in particular the cleric and the sorcerer. The idea was based on how the favored soul had more spells known and gained actual class features while still being a spontaneous casting class. You have to remember at that time people still believed that spontaneous casting was stronger than prepared casting by such a degree that you really had to horribly limit the caster by spells known, spell level, and less class features than a prepared caster. Clearly by the time they made the favored soul WotC had figured out to a degree that this was not really true anymore (also that a divine caster may need a different number of spells to do their job than an arcane caster). After a bit of time it was eventually decided by many that the favored soul was no more broken than any other full caster and is roughly in the same level of power as the sorcerer. That is also why I cringe when I see the word broken as I find it is often used in a conversation in a way that I do not agree with. I find some people like to use the term broken even for things that are just slightly better than what you can already get which to me just means it could be overpowered (or in other cases the original is actually underpowered). Sometimes you will see that word thrown around and the difference is perhaps 1 or 2 points of damage on average per hit and to me that just does not qualify.

[noob]

Do you know the fight over flavoured souls (they taste great) is 3.5 stuff?
In 5e the balance is much tighter than in 3.5 so risks of something being overpowered relatively to the rest of 5e content is much higher.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That is also why I cringe when I see the word broken as I find it is often used in a conversation in a way that I do not agree with. I find some people like to use the term broken even for things that are just slightly better than what you can already get which to me just means it could be overpowered (or in other cases the original is actually underpowered). Sometimes you will see that word thrown around and the difference is perhaps 1 or 2 points of damage on average per hit and to me that just does not qualify.
Ugh, yeah. 2 DPR is not "broken." Wish/Simulacrum is broken. Coffeelocks are broken. Great Weapon Master is just strong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ugh, yeah. 2 DPR is not "broken." Wish/Simulacrum is broken. Coffeelocks are broken. Great Weapon Master is just strong.

Yeah. We've gotten so spoiled with 5e's relative balance that we're worrying about things that are really truly in the noise. No sane DM lets the really broken ones (Wish loops) fly. And nothing else is that bad, unless all you care about is training dummy DPR.

[KorvinStarmast]

The only problem is that he was an Incarnate, and 5e has no mechanics that even remotely resemble Magic of Incarnum. So we sat down for an hour and brewed up some rules. It was simple, it wasn't unbalanced because he wasn't trying to minmax, and it made the player happy. Where's the harm in that? I too am interested in your Incarnum kit. Please do post it, in response to this or maybe as its own thread?

[R.Shackleford]

Do you know the fight over flavoured souls (they taste great) is 3.5 stuff?
In 5e the balance is much tighter than in 3.5 so risks of something being overpowered relatively to the rest of 5e content is much higher.

Saying "well, it's better than 3.5" doesn't address the issue. It just shifts the focus to a different discussion.

5e isn't balanced at its core. It's like having tier 4 classes in the same game as tier 2 classes... It looks balanced in white room scenarios that people love to bring up but in actual gameplay, well, you ain't swimming across that gulf.

Heck, I don't play necromancers anymore because it's so easy to invalidate another class.

So wheb it comes to homebrew, there is a huge amount of leeway when it comes to the power of said class, subclass, or whatever else because 5e is already all over the board.

[MrStabby]

Broken means different things to different people. For many, "broken" means invalidating other options. If something is strictly better than another class or option or is sufficiently close to being better that the original options are only preferable in niche situations then it would cause people to pick from fewer options.

Bad homebrew can also be those things that suck fun from the game: "now you get to summon four creatures at level 1 with this spell" - needn't be at all game breaking in terms of making things too easy but by bogging things down and making it more likely that more time will be spent on that 1 player it can suck some of the fun out of the game. To be fair, this is true of much of WotC content as well - just because it is bad doesn't mean it is 3rd party.

As a rule, I don't think homebrew should fall outside of existing capabilities. If a class is better at single target damage than a vengeance paladin, has a more flexible spellcasting ruleset than wizard or is more mobile than a shadowmonk then I think it is particularly dangerous.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Saying "well, it's better than 3.5" doesn't address the issue. It just shifts the focus to a different discussion.

5e isn't balanced at its core. It's like having tier 4 classes in the same game as tier 2 classes... It looks balanced in white room scenarios that people love to bring up but in actual gameplay, well, you ain't swimming across that gulf.

Heck, I don't play necromancers anymore because it's so easy to invalidate another class.

So wheb it comes to homebrew, there is a huge amount of leeway when it comes to the power of said class, subclass, or whatever else because 5e is already all over the board.

That completely does not match my experience. Unless you run quite far from the design assumptions (ie 1 solo-combat encounter per day or very mixed optimization), I have seen exactly none of that imbalance. It's all within the noise as far as I'm concerned.

Necromancers are only powerful if you ignore all the limitations. Such as "where are you getting those bodies? How are you actually doing anything involving civilized people? Are you assuming perfect tactics (and ignoring the inability to do so)? How are you fitting those things into a small environment?"

All the "broken" tactics I've seen posted here rely on the white rooms you've said are the only balanced ones. They live in that TO space where you can ignore anything like campaigns, deadlines, DM decisions, or any other uncomfortable fact. And so they're useless in a real game.

[MrStabby]

That completely does not match my experience. Unless you run quite far from the design assumptions (ie 1 solo-combat encounter per day or very mixed optimization), I have seen exactly none of that imbalance. It's all within the noise as far as I'm concerned.

Necromancers are only powerful if you ignore all the limitations. Such as "where are you getting those bodies? How are you actually doing anything involving civilized people? Are you assuming perfect tactics (and ignoring the inability to do so)? How are you fitting those things into a small environment?"

All the "broken" tactics I've seen posted here rely on the white rooms you've said are the only balanced ones. They live in that TO space where you can ignore anything like campaigns, deadlines, DM decisions, or any other uncomfortable fact. And so they're useless in a real game.

For me necromancers are an example of a bad design, but a type of bad design that seems to come in homebrew a lot. There are limitations and downsides, but those limitations are borne by the party not by the player. Sure you can have a load of undead, but it limits the party's interactions with towns. You need to keep casting to maintain control over the undead, but if you don't it is the party's problem not your problem. You shouldn't balance too powerful abilities with additional mechanical or narrative problems for the rest of the party.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me necromancers are an example of a bad design, but a type of bad design that seems to come in homebrew a lot. There are limitations and downsides, but those limitations are borne by the party not by the player. Sure you can have a load of undead, but it limits the party's interactions with towns. You need to keep casting to maintain control over the undead, but if you don't it is the party's problem not your problem. You shouldn't balance too powerful abilities with additional mechanical or narrative problems for the rest of the party.

I agree that necromancers, as designed, are annoying to have in the party. But they're not broken in an overpowering sense. Outside of white room/perfect tactics scenario tilted very heavily toward the necromancer, they're mostly just pointless. They gum up the battlefield but die instantly to anything that gets to hit them (or a fireball or equivalent). And they can't even be micromanaged that way anyway--you get one order to the whole lot of them per turn. And it has to be the same order. You can't say "go over there and do that"--one or the other. If you tell them to attack, they'll do it the best they can, but won't stand in some perfect formation (especially zombies). If you tell them to move, they'll all try to get as close to the indicated point as possible.

I personally find mass minion-mancy to be more annoying than anything else. That goes for summons, undead, or any thing where you've got one player in control of more than just one character. I make every effort on my DM turn to go quick (even at the expense of tactics), but players are already slow enough. Adding a bunch more micromanagement (which isn't even possible per RAW), just slows things down a bunch more.

[noob]

I agree that necromancers, as designed, are annoying to have in the party. But they're not broken in an overpowering sense. Outside of white room/perfect tactics scenario tilted very heavily toward the necromancer, they're mostly just pointless. They gum up the battlefield but die instantly to anything that gets to hit them (or a fireball or equivalent). And they can't even be micromanaged that way anyway--you get one order to the whole lot of them per turn. And it has to be the same order. You can't say "go over there and do that"--one or the other. If you tell them to attack, they'll do it the best they can, but won't stand in some perfect formation (especially zombies). If you tell them to move, they'll all try to get as close to the indicated point as possible.

I personally find mass minion-mancy to be more annoying than anything else. That goes for summons, undead, or any thing where you've got one player in control of more than just one character. I make every effort on my DM turn to go quick (even at the expense of tactics), but players are already slow enough. Adding a bunch more micromanagement (which isn't even possible per RAW), just slows things down a bunch more.

Step 1: define or find a word for "fire at opponents while spreading"
Step 2 use that order the majority of the time.
you then have next to no problems with fireballs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Step 1: define or find a word for "fire at opponents while spreading"
Step 2 use that order the majority of the time.
you then have next to no problems with fireballs.

That's not an option. You get one order. No conditionals, no multi-part orders. One order. You can order them to attack and move, but all have to have the same movement and attack target. And each and every movement must be done individually, unless you give a general order such as "follow me". In which case they won't attack (since they can only do one thing at a time).

You could give the order to "attack enemies", but then you don't get to control who they attack or where they go.

And spreading out is only an option in open terrain, where very few combats actually take place. In a dungeon, they're just in the way. It's also limited--you can only order them if they're within 60 feet of you.

And more than that, you have to account for all the bodies, handle them in town, keep track of when you animated them, and all such things. All in all, necromancy and other mass minion-mancy is just annoying and rarely worth actually playing with people you care about. Not because it's OP, but because it's obnoxious, just like the Lawful Stupid (or Chaotic Stupid) stereotypes. Keep it to one or two undead buddies, and you're fine, as long as you can be fast about it and aren't doing anything social.

[MaxWilson]

Ugh, yeah. 2 DPR is not "broken." Wish/Simulacrum is broken. Coffeelocks are broken. Great Weapon Master is just strong.

Depends on how you man "coffeelocks." If you short rest for weeks at a time without sleeping, yeah, that's broken (but also nobody ever does it in practice). That's the original sense in which "coffeelock" a.k.a. Java Do'Urden was meant. But nowadays I've seen people refer even to a hypothetical sorlock who short rests twice in a day while converting spell slots as a "coffeelock", as in "I've asked my players not to coffelock, although I limit them to two short rests per long rest anyway" (i.e. true coffeelocking is impossible). Short resting for a few hours at a time while converting spell slots is not broken, it's just rather strong.


That completely does not match my experience. Unless you run quite far from the design assumptions (ie 1 solo-combat encounter per day or very mixed optimization), I have seen exactly none of that imbalance. It's all within the noise as far as I'm concerned.

You've said though that your players are uninterested in challenge or mechanics or even in level advancement though. Of course you haven't seen any of that imbalance--your players don't pursue it.

[ZorroGames]

I'll go on record as not being a fan of homebrew, 99 percent of the time it's broken garbage. I can't be the only one that feels this way. I would much rather reflavor an entire class for my players then brew something up or have them play something they found online.

Nope.

Starting with this new thing called D&D in 1973 most everything had elements of what is now called “home brew” in games/campaigns.

Note, I do strictly play AL since returning to D&D with 5e after AD&D 2nd. So this is a First World Problem IMNSHO.

[MadBear]

As someone who is primarily a DM, I tend to love homebrew from my players. Especially if it's tied to making a character within my setting. To me it's a compliment that they're trying to engage with my world. I would never describe it as something to "cringe" at.

To me the important part is compromise. If a player approaches me with a homebrew class they want to play, I'll look it over. If I see something that is broken, unbalanced, or out of place in the setting, we'll fix it together. I tend to fall into the category of saying "yes, and/but" rather then "no".

If the player is unwilling to change something I don't agree with, then I won't allow it, but I find people tend to be reasonable, and it's faily easy to find common ground.

[ZorroGames]

You might not be as old as you think, kid. But I can certainly believe that 3.5 influenced your thinking. I skipped 3E entirely and barely played 4E but my impression is that they were even more WotCish than 5E in terms of class bloat. I'm not as old as some but to me there are fundamentally only four character classes: fighter, mage, thief, and priest. 5E's twelve already seems like a lot, especially when they're mostly just variations on those four.

This exactly! 12 classes plus subclasses? This is not enough? Why?

[stoutstien]

This exactly! 12 classes plus subclasses? This is not enough? Why?

Some people really enjoy to tinker. It like asking why you might enjoy building new stuff with LEGO with so many boxed options available. It's just another way for people to be creative.

[Max_Killjoy]

This exactly! 12 classes plus subclasses? This is not enough? Why?


It's trivial to come up with character concepts that fit firmly into fantasy-genre gaming but don't fit well, it at all, within the existing "12 plus subs" options.

The question then becomes one of whether you consider D&D to be its own subgenre unto itself, with limits on which concepts are valid to that subgenre.

[MrStabby]

Some people really enjoy to tinker. It like asking why you might enjoy building new stuff with LEGO with so many boxed options available. It's just another way for people to be creative.

Or why people might want to chose from more than four models of car to drive, to chose between more than four people to marry, to chose between more than four meals for every dinner they will eat. Maybe some people think that a world where you can chose between 12 films to watch or twelve pieces of music to listen to is better than a world where you chose between four.

Sometimes choice is good. People play each of the classes. That means that for each class there is something that has made it more appropriate for that player than the classes they didn't play. Removing these classes would mean each of these people would be left playing something less appropriate. Meaningfully distinct options enable your desires as a player to be better captured - it is a good thing.

This is why I think 3rd party homebrew is usually a bad idea. Homebrew for your table and your players, to match their interests and needs and the needs of the campaign.

[Man_Over_Game]

This exactly! 12 classes plus subclasses? This is not enough? Why?

Playstyles still aren't feasible without a LOT of levels. People don't want to hit level 14 before they're able to play their character in a specific way.

For example, if I wanted a reactive melee tank, one that adapts his strategy to match his opponent, you'd be rather hard-pressed to find something that suits that. Eldritch Knight, maybe, but your options are limited to Absorb Elements and Shield for 20 levels. 2 spells with 3 spell slots per day isn't "adaptive".

Or a complex ranged attacker. Battlemaster *kind of* fits this role, but that only accounts for 4 attacks per Short Rest. That doesn't account for much when you have 1-2 fights per Short Rest, attack 2 times per round, for 3-4 round fights. You are "complex" 1/3 of the time, and you just spam the Attack button the other 2/3 of the time.

I think that WotC is being far too redundant with their builds (Do we really need a Celestial Warlock, Divine Soul Sorcerer, and Bards?), and a little bit more focus would remove a lot of the needs that are being resolved from homebrew.

[MaxWilson]

It's trivial to come up with character concepts that fit firmly into fantasy-genre gaming but don't fit well, it at all, within the existing "12 plus subs" options.

The question then becomes one of whether you consider D&D to be its own subgenre unto itself, with limits on which concepts are valid to that subgenre.

If I want to play Onos T'oolan or Mok or Lady Envy from the Memories of Ice (Malazan Book of the Fallen), I don't just need a new subclass, I need a different game system. 5E doesn't do any of those concepts, by design.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's trivial to come up with character concepts that fit firmly into fantasy-genre gaming but don't fit well, it at all, within the existing "12 plus subs" options.

The question then becomes one of whether you consider D&D to be its own subgenre unto itself, with limits on which concepts are valid to that subgenre.

That brings up an interesting question: What's considered valid for 5e subclasses?

I guess it'd be anything that:


Can be scaled from level 1-20
Fits within one of the 12 original subclasses


And while that sounds really stupid, there are a lot of characters that wouldn't fit those guidelines. For example, many heroes/villains don't scale between levels 1-20 well, and go through dramatic shifts in power, and those aren't emulated with the 5e formula. 5e also doesn't have any class that sacrifices a part of their energy for temporary power, which could be a deal breaker if you're looking for a concept that relies on that.

I'd be interested to see other concepts that just straight up don't work in 5e without a lot of homebrew or new content.

[Max_Killjoy]

That brings up an interesting question: What's considered valid for 5e subclasses?

I guess it'd be anything that:


Can be scaled from level 1-20
Fits within one of the 12 original subclasses


And while that sounds really stupid, there are a lot of characters that wouldn't fit those guidelines. For example, many heroes/villains don't scale between levels 1-20 well, and go through dramatic shifts in power, and those aren't emulated with the 5e formula. 5e also doesn't have any class that sacrifices a part of their energy for temporary power, which could be a deal breaker if you're looking for a concept that relies on that.

I'd be interested to see other concepts that just straight up don't work in 5e without a lot of homebrew or new content.

How would you build a character who relies on raw quickness and reaction time, rather than skill? 5e is REALLY strict about the action economy, and such a character would seem to break that almost immediately if translated literally.

A character with a shadow concept, but mainly armed melee fighting, and doesn't "hex" people or rely on "charmingness" as their "main stat".

A character with a tight magical focus on a particular "theme" of spells, but one that cuts across D&D's schools of magic -- say, mentalism but not illusions... or ice/cold. (I suppose they could just take War Mage and be picky with their spell selection, I guess.)

A character who is a "determinator" -- raw willpower and stubbornness, mainly melee and dirty infighting, needs to have good saves across the board to represent their... 5e is downright allergic to the notion of broad save proficiency outside of high-level Monks.

A character who relies on Abilities and Skills and Proficiencies instead of an increasing stack of crazy powers.

A character who is broadly skilled, but INT based rather than charming or nimble.

[noob]

That's not an option. You get one order. No conditionals, no multi-part orders. One order. You can order them to attack and move, but all have to have the same movement and attack target. And each and every movement must be done individually, unless you give a general order such as "follow me". In which case they won't attack (since they can only do one thing at a time).

You could give the order to "attack enemies", but then you don't get to control who they attack or where they go.

And spreading out is only an option in open terrain, where very few combats actually take place. In a dungeon, they're just in the way. It's also limited--you can only order them if they're within 60 feet of you.

And more than that, you have to account for all the bodies, handle them in town, keep track of when you animated them, and all such things. All in all, necromancy and other mass minion-mancy is just annoying and rarely worth actually playing with people you care about. Not because it's OP, but because it's obnoxious, just like the Lawful Stupid (or Chaotic Stupid) stereotypes. Keep it to one or two undead buddies, and you're fine, as long as you can be fast about it and aren't doing anything social.
It is a single order since it is a single word.
It would be as absurd as saying "you can not order your skeletons to attack: you need to order them to get an arrow then order them to place the arrow at the right place in the bow and then order them to draw their bow then order them to aim then order them to release the string"
any action can be split in more actions so it does not makes sense to say "nope you have to do a single atomic action" because there is no such thing as atomic actions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

[1]A character with a shadow concept, but mainly armed melee fighting, and doesn't "hex" people or rely on "charmingness" as their "main stat".

[2]A character with a tight magical focus on a particular "theme" of spells, but one that cuts across D&D's schools of magic -- say, mentalism but not illusions... or ice/cold. (I suppose they could just take War Mage and be picky with their spell selection, I guess.)


1. Shadow monk. Straight up. Uses a quarterstaff. Done.

2. Depends on the focus, but I find you can do most of the themes just by a good spell selection. You'll lose a lot of optimization, but...

I do wish that D&D generally was more thematic about "spell lists" and have made attempts in that direction (see my signature), but nothing I'd really want to use at this point without extensive playtesting and rebalancing.

[Man_Over_Game]

How would you build a character who relies on raw quickness and reaction time, rather than skill? 5e is REALLY strict about the action economy, and such a character would seem to break that almost immediately if translated literally.

A character with a shadow concept, but mainly armed melee fighting, and doesn't "hex" people or rely on "charmingness" as their "main stat".

A character with a tight magical focus on a particular "theme" of spells, but one that cuts across D&D's schools of magic -- say, mentalism but not illusions... or ice/cold. (I suppose they could just take War Mage and be picky with their spell selection, I guess.)

A character who is a "determinator" -- raw willpower and stubbornness, mainly melee and dirty infighting, needs to have good saves across the board to represent their... 5e is downright allergic to the notion of broad save proficiency outside of high-level Monks.

A character who relies on Abilities and Skills and Proficiencies instead of an increasing stack of crazy powers.

A character who is broadly skilled, but INT based rather than charming or nimble.


I'm not sure what the difference is on the first one. I'd probably go with the Berserker Barbarian, though. Lots of options for using Bonus Actions and Reactions aggressively. In my Prestige Options, I made the Berserker Barbarian use Dexterity instead of Strength, and it's exactly what you're describing. The Samurai could also fit this bill, treating Advantage and THP as simply moving faster than anyone else.
Does a Shadow Monk count?
It'd be hard pressed to find something that doesn't fit between the Draconic Sorcerer and any of the Wizard schools. Divine Soul Sorcerer does better with Concentration spells (like buffs), Life Cleric does better at healing, Shadow Sorcerer and Hexblade does better at cursing others. Land Druid does well with Difficult Terrain and plants. There are a number of options for summoning. Excluding any of those, I'm having a hard time seeing a niche that needs filled.
That's exactly how I envision the Samurai. Not as a Japenese Folk Hero, but as a Fighter who uses willpower to fight harder. Like a Barbarian, but less angry. They also get better saves with their Samurai feature and Indomitable! It fits all the boxes. Or you could go Battlemaster and pick up Lucky and Resilient feats and that'd match what you're describing pretty well.
Does the Inquisitive/Thief Rogue count?
This one does need a bit more support, but you have to ask why/how a librarian would act as an adventurer while not using magic. Most of the times when I imagine the bookworm in a dungeon, they are someone the party has to look after rather than a contributing member of the party.

[Raiki]

This exactly! 12 classes plus subclasses? This is not enough? Why?

It's very difficult to contain the entirety of the human imagination in 12 blocks of statistics. It's difficult to contain it in 1,200 blocks too, but the odds of there being something close to what you're looking for drastically increase.

Now, obviously I'm not arguing for over a thousand published classes (or am I?) but 12 is a little harsh.

Speaking only for myself, I had a very difficult time switching from 3.5 to 5e because I couldn't see it as anything other than taking away 90% of the character options. I just flipped through my PDF of Complete Arcane and found no fewer than 8 examples of classes that either can't be replicated at all in 5e, or can't be replicated in a way that creates a functional character that any sane person would bring to a table. And that's just one book.

So, my personal answer to your 'why' is half "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your PHB" and half that I've experienced the freedom of an unbridled creation engine, and now I find it difficult to accept harsh restrictions on character creation.

Again, just my personal answer, not trying to stir ****.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Speaking only for myself, I had a very difficult time switching from 3.5 to 5e because I couldn't see it as anything other than taking away 90% of the character options. I just flipped through my PDF of Complete Arcane and found no fewer than 8 examples of classes that either can't be replicated at all in 5e, or can't be replicated in a way that creates a functional character that any sane person would bring to a table. And that's just one book.


I'm curious to know which ones and why you think they're impossible to replicate. There are certain mechanical pieces that just don't work in 5e, but the themes are much more accessible. Any translation between editions will be much more about thematics than about mechanics, because the core philosophy differs strongly.

There's also the fact that about 90% (rough estimate) of 3.5e classes were just utter crap either in concept or implementation. Most of the PrCs are better as sub-classes, and most of the base classes just sucked. I'm more than happy to discard all of those in exchange for ones that work well together.

[Max_Killjoy]

1. Shadow monk. Straight up. Uses a quarterstaff. Done.


Too much reliance on unarmed strikes and wuxia.




2. Depends on the focus, but I find you can do most of the themes just by a good spell selection. You'll lose a lot of optimization, but...

I do wish that D&D generally was more thematic about "spell lists" and have made attempts in that direction (see my signature), but nothing I'd really want to use at this point without extensive playtesting and rebalancing.


I tried to do lists for some various "themes" and most of them came back quite sparse. I think some combo "themes" might be needed... so instead of Darkness or Cold, do Void, and combine dark and cold.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I tried to do lists for some various "themes" and most of them came back quite sparse. I think some combo "themes" might be needed... so instead of Darkness or Cold, do Void, and combine dark and cold.

When I did this, I tried to do more "functional" themes--not as much elemental or "pure", but things like

Divine Warrior
Guardian
Purifier
Witch
X-omancer
Mesmer
Kineticist

I ended up with 30-some-odd overlapping themes. There were several that just didn't deserve separate themes because they're so sparse and I haven't collapsed them down yet.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm not sure what the difference is on the first one. I'd probably go with the Berserker Barbarian, though. Lots of options for using Bonus Actions and Reactions aggressively. In my Prestige Options, I made the Berserker Barbarian use Dexterity instead of Strength, and it's exactly what you're describing.
Does a Shadow Monk count?
It'd be hard pressed to find something that doesn't fit between the Draconic Sorcerer and any of the Wizard schools. Divine Soul Sorcerer does better with Concentration spells (like buffs), Life Cleric does better at healing, Shadow Sorcerer and Hexblade does better at cursing others. Land Druid does well with Difficult Terrain and plants. Excluding any of those, I'm having a hard time seeing a niche that needs filled.
That's exactly how I envision the Samurai. Not as a Japenese Folk Hero, but as a Fighter who uses willpower to fight harder. Like a Barbarian, but less angry. They also get better saves with their Samurai feature and Indomitable! It fits all the boxes. Or you could go Battlemaster and pick up Lucky and Resilient feats and that'd match what you're describing pretty well.
Does the Inquisitive/Thief Rogue count?
This one does need a bit more support, but you have to ask why/how a librarian would act as an adventurer while not using magic. Most of the times when I imagine the bookworm in a dungeon, they are someone the party has to look after rather than a contributing member of the party.



1. I'm not sure D&D will ever support a distinction, especially 5e with its tightly-constrained action economy.

2. Not really, too reliant on unarmed strikes and wuxia wall-running stuff.

3. Are there enough spells and appropriate subclasses to support the examples I gave? Mentalism (psychic and telekinetic stuff)? Ice/cold? Heck, I tried to do a full list of shadow/dark spells, and it was pretty sparse.

4. I'll take another look at the Samurai.

5. Maybe, if you look at their higher-level abilities as pure ridiculous skill rather than bordering on "powers". But, I was thinking more of a character who relies on their Ability scores and Proficiencies. So instead of having some wacky half-magical power at level whatever, they rely on having well-rounded Ability scores, but that might just not be a thing that works in D&D.

6. I wasn't thinking of a librarian, just a non-casting or low-casting INT-based character, fighting abilities are not counter-concept.

[Bloodcloud]

I cringe when I see Dandwiki that's for sure.

Really depends on the homebrew. I homebrew items all the time, made a few monsters for my purposes, and I think every dm has. Homebrew campaign setting is way common.

Now, full classes? Haven't seem many that looked remotely ok.

[Man_Over_Game]

1. I'm not sure D&D will ever support a distinction, especially 5e with its tightly-constrained action economy.

2. Not really, too reliant on unarmed strikes and wuxia wall-running stuff.

3. Are there enough spells and appropriate subclasses to support the examples I gave? Mentalism (psychic and telekinetic stuff)? Ice/cold? Heck, I tried to do a full list of shadow/dark spells, and it was pretty sparse.

4. I'll take another look at the Samurai.

5. Maybe, if you look at their higher-level abilities as pure ridiculous skill rather than bordering on "powers". But, I was thinking more of a character who relies on their Ability scores and Proficiencies. So instead of having some wacky half-magical power at level whatever, they rely on having well-rounded Ability scores, but that might just not be a thing that works in D&D.

6. I wasn't thinking of a librarian, just a non-casting or low-casting INT-based character, fighting abilities are not counter-concept.


I agree. The Hunter comes close, thinking about it.
The Gloom Stalker fits the bill pretty closely.
Not perfectly, I'd admit. Although don't forget the Land Druid has some options (as it has a lot of support for an ice caster). There's not much yet that supports a mentalist, but I could easily see it as a Wizard of some kind.
Cool. I think it works as long as you ignore the name.
I mean, even the early level abilities are just "I see an enemy, I watch the enemy, I hit the enemy". But there's not much that supports a "well rounded" character, I guess.
Would a Monk using Intelligence in place of Wisdom work?

[stoutstien]

I had a request from a player who wanted a metaphysical class that had the ablity to manifest different emotions. Was very rewarding to do something from scratch and see someone get to be the character they imagined.

[2D8HP]

I'd be pretty much completely on the side of "Core is more than enough" except that I really liked the "Swashbuckler" in the SCAG and (very slightly weaker one) in Xanthar's (which a version of was in a Unearthed Arcana, but since I don't print those out I don't use those).

Before I saw the Swashbuckler it just wouldn't occur to me that 5e D&D needed any more sub-classes (quite the opposite) but if I found a new sub-class I liked I can't say that something else new wouldn't benefit the game.

That said, the more additional material the more DM's have to consider, and for me much more than the Starter Set rules is too much for me to handle (though 35 to 40 years ago when I DM'd using AD&D plus The Dragon articles I probably could've done it, but I don't have as much cognitive agility and spare time as then).

Today with my DM'ing players who otherwise just use the free D&D Basic rules you can download a complete legal copy of from the WotC website here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules), if a player wanted to use something simple from the U.A., Xanthar's, 3rd party, or homebrew (all the same to me really) I'd probably be okay with it provided they gave me a printed out copy in large type with good line and paragraph breaks, provided it was only a page or two - and I understood what it meant - off the top of my head something like "The Brute" from the U.S. would be okay, but "The Mystic" wouldn't, not because of "balance" but just based on how well I understand the new rules, and I'd have to limit how much new stuff is introduced at a time - simply because I'm a slow learner, but I could handle a party that had a Fighter Scout from the UA, plus a Rogue Scout from Xanthar's better than I could a party with both a Sorcerer and Warlock from the PHB PC's.

[PhoenixPhyre]

3. Are there enough spells and appropriate subclasses to support the examples I gave? Mentalism (psychic and telekinetic stuff)? Ice/cold? Heck, I tried to do a full list of shadow/dark spells, and it was pretty sparse.


These lists are cross-class, but not strongly, as any pure thematic list would have to be.


Pure mind-messing is one of the better-supported themes; it's the basic "bard" kit. Probably College of Whispers.

Cantrips: Friends, Message, Minor Illusion, Vicious Mockery
1: Bane, Charm Person, Command, Compelled Duel, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Dissonant Whispers, Healing Word, Sleep, Hideous Laughter, Cause Fear, Puppet, Sense Emotion, Sudden Awakening, Unearthly Chorus
2: Blur, Calm Emotions, Crown of Madness, Detect Thoughts, Enthrall, Hold Person, Invisibility, Locate Creature, Phantasmal Force, Suggestion, Zone of Truth, Mind Spike
3: Fear, Feign Death, Hypnotic Pattern, Mass Healing Word, Sending, Tongues, Enemies Abound
4: Compulsion, Confusion, Dominate Beast, Greater Invis, Hallucinatory Terrain, Phantasmal Killer, Charm Monster
5: Dominate Person, Dream, Geas, Hold Monster, Mislead, Modify Memory, Telepathic Bond, Synaptic Static
6: Eyebite, Mass suggestion, Irresistible Dance, Mental Prison
7: Mirage Arcane, Project Image, Symbol
8:Antipathy/Sympathy, Dominate Monster, Feeblemind, Glibness, Mind Blank, Telepathy
9: Weird, Psychic Scream



This one is almost entirely wizard, with some druid on there. Evocation wizard or draconic sorcerer.

Cantrips: Ray of Frost, Frostbite, Shape Water
1: Armor of Agathys, Chromatic Orb, Absorb Elements, Ice Knife, Chromatic Orb, Create or Destroy Water, Detect Evil and Good, Fog Cloud, Protection from Good and Evil (elementals),
2: Snowball Swarm, Dragon’s Breath (cold)
3: Elemental Weapon, Protection from Energy, Sleet Storm, Water Breathing, Water Walk, Tidal Wave, Wall of Water
4: Fire Shield, Ice Storm, Elemental Bane, Conjure Minor Elementals, Control Water, Storm Sphere, Vitriolic Sphere, Watery Sphere
5: Cone of Cold, Cloudkill, Conjure Elemental, Dispel Evil and Good, Maelstrom
6: Freezing Sphere, Wall of Ice, Investiture of Ice, Primordial Ward
7: Simulacrum, Prismatic Spray
8: Horrid Wilting, Tsunami
9: Prismatic Wall, Storm of Vengeance



Both of these are small themes, so they're squished together here. As they probably should be. Still lacking a few 3rd and 4th level spells though.

Shadow sorcerer is the obvious choice here, or GOO warlock. Most of these are warlock spells.

Depending on your exact interpretation, also try the Illusionist theme.

Cantrips: Eldritch Blast, Ray of Frost, Frostbite
1: Silent Image, Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar, Witch Bolt
2: Blindness/Deafness, Darkness, Darkvision, Misty Step, Pass without Trace, Silence, Shadow Blade, See Invisibility
3: Hunger of Hadar
4: Black Tentacles
5: Seeming, Enervation
6: Programmed Illusion, Mental Prison, Disintegrate
7: Horrid Wilting, Maddening Darkness
8: Glibness, Illusory Dragon, Maddening Darkness
9: Gate, Psychic Scream

[Grod_The_Giant]

Major tropes and concepts I saw as missing included:

A legendary craftsman type who forges magic items (there's UA, but it's not official and doesn't fit quite right).
Strength-based unarmed combatants
A warrior with uncontrollable Hulk style transformations
A Cleric of ocean deities
A Druid gish that doesn't involve turning into a bear
Alchemy of... any type, really, including both full "caster" types and Witcher-style augmented warriors
A non-casting support warrior, like the old Warlord or Marshal
Characters with a distinct bound to a magic item (that don't come with high-powered spellcasting at the same time)
Effective nonmagical healing
Sorcerers descended from Fey or from Fiends
A Bartimaeus Trilogy style summoner, who has limited magic of their own and relies on bound spirits.
A dragon-focus Warlock
The proverbial arcane half-caster

[Max_Killjoy]

Major tropes and concepts I saw as missing included:

A Cleric of ocean deities



If we're going to get into missing Cleric domains, that's a whole subcategory of this.

I'll see if I can find the thread.

[Black Jester]

I have the exact opposite notion: Whenever a player, or worse, a Dungeon Master, treats the rules not as a utility to use, change and adapt but the Stone Tablets of Fate that are beyond mere mortals, I instinctively brace myself for mediocrity.


As if not adding anything weird, fun or just individual is some sort of merit.

A game without houserules will always feel more generic, bland and just more dispassionate than one that has been finely attuned to a specific crowd and their desires and interests. A good DM will always adapt the game to his strengths and ideas and especially to the fields of interests and wishes of his player base anyway, even if he just has to come up with a decent ruling on a spot for an unforseen situation.


The freedom to play with the moving parts of a game and the general mutual trust that other players can do so too, is a necessary part of experiencing the game and to share it. The idea of homebrew - that is, the freedom that you as a player are important enough to contribute to the game and that your contributions matter, not just on the character level but on the authorial level as well - is a fulfilling experience. As such, even a game with really bad homebrewed material is usually going to be a lot more involving and fun than a game with no homebrew at all.

I understand the notion to run a purist RAW game when you are new to a game and try to understand how it works. But as soon as you are familiar with the rules and you have an idea, there is no good reason to continue to do so.

[GlenSmash!]

If I want to play Onos T'oolan or Mok or Lady Envy from the Memories of Ice (Malazan Book of the Fallen), I don't just need a new subclass, I need a different game system. 5E doesn't do any of those concepts, by design.

Hmm.

Ok. I have just figured out that my current Barbarian is in fact a lot like Onos Toolan (resurrected though). But he is definitely the simplest in concept of the 3. Actually I can't remember much about Mok other than fighting with 2 swords.

Granted, good natured barbarian philosopher with a greatsword pretty much covers my go to D&D character.

[MeeposFire]

Do you know the fight over flavoured souls (they taste great) is 3.5 stuff?
In 5e the balance is much tighter than in 3.5 so risks of something being overpowered relatively to the rest of 5e content is much higher.

Of course I know it is from 3e I specifically said that in my post. I used the 3e version specifically because now with hindsight the community at large recognizes that the favored soul was not out of bounds compared to the other options in the game. I did not use a 5e example because I did not think I could get as much of a consensus on a specific example.

I find that over time in hindsight people find that what they thought was overpowered at first did nto turn out to be that bad. When 3e first came out they thought spontaneous casting was so powerful that they had to give a bunch of extra limitations in order to balnce it with the traditional prepared casters. By the end of 3e the designers and later the players started to realize that those limitations were not needed to be so heavy handed and by and large prepared casters were more powerful. I am sure after hindsight we will have something similar happen with 5e where people will have stories about this mechanic was thought to be overpowered but later on we found it was not so bad.

As for 5e balance being more tight than 3e sure but that does not really say much on its own 3e was in all likelihood the least balanced version of D&D ever. I also do not think that balance is something that is so exact. I find some people get really upset if say damage between two classes are different even if it is only a couple of points on average per round. To me the game is not meant to be that exact in the balance that you should be worried about such a small number.

[Man_Over_Game]

Of course I know it is from 3e I specifically said that in my post. I used the 3e version specifically because now with hindsight the community at large recognizes that the favored soul was not out of bounds compared to the other options in the game. I did not use a 5e example because I did not think I could get as much of a consensus on a specific example.

I find that over time in hindsight people find that what they thought was overpowered at first did nto turn out to be that bad. When 3e first came out they thought spontaneous casting was so powerful that they had to give a bunch of extra limitations in order to balnce it with the traditional prepared casters. By the end of 3e the designers and later the players started to realize that those limitations were not needed to be so heavy handed and by and large prepared casters were more powerful. I am sure after hindsight we will have something similar happen with 5e where people will have stories about this mechanic was thought to be overpowered but later on we found it was not so bad.

As for 5e balance being more tight than 3e sure but that does not really say much on its own 3e was in all likelihood the least balanced version of D&D ever. I also do not think that balance is something that is so exact. I find some people get really upset if say damage between two classes are different even if it is only a couple of points on average per round. To me the game is not meant to be that exact in the balance that you should be worried about such a small number.

Problems are relative. If someone is stealing stuff from your shed, that's not a big deal if his friend has stabbed you in the side. Now, assuming nobody is stabbing you, someone stealing stuff from you is a really big deal.

5e is a lot tighter when it comes to balance, but there's still a difference in power between one option and another. The fact is, people will always complain in order to want something better. That doesn't make it any less valid; the pursuit of something better should always be the ideal.

[patchyman]

This one does need a bit more support, but you have to ask why/how a librarian would act as an adventurer while not using magic. Most of the times when I imagine the bookworm in a dungeon, they are someone the party has to look after rather than a contributing member of the party.


V.Human Fighter. Skilled at 1st level, Prodigy at 4th.

That being said, there are always a couple of concepts that are left behind. I feel the pain of limited sorcerer subclasses and no “generalist” sorcerer subclass.

[patchyman]

I had a request from a player who wanted a metaphysical class that had the ablity to manifest different emotions. Was very rewarding to do something from scratch and see someone get to be the character they imagined.

I did this once with a reflavoured bard.

[Max_Killjoy]

If we're going to get into missing Cleric domains, that's a whole subcategory of this.

I'll see if I can find the thread.

Here we go -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583011-Cleric-Domains

[Man_Over_Game]

Major tropes and concepts I saw as missing included:

A legendary craftsman type who forges magic items (there's UA, but it's not official and doesn't fit quite right).
Strength-based unarmed combatants
A warrior with uncontrollable Hulk style transformations
A Cleric of ocean deities
A Druid gish that doesn't involve turning into a bear
Alchemy of... any type, really, including both full "caster" types and Witcher-style augmented warriors
A non-casting support warrior, like the old Warlord or Marshal
Characters with a distinct bound to a magic item (that don't come with high-powered spellcasting at the same time)
Effective nonmagical healing
Sorcerers descended from Fey or from Fiends
A Bartimaeus Trilogy style summoner, who has limited magic of their own and relies on bound spirits.
A dragon-focus Warlock
The proverbial arcane half-caster



Forge Cleric comes close
Barbarian 1, Monk X, going Drunken Master does really well here.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure how Barbarian Rage doesn't fit this.
I agree, there should be more water support.
Druid + Ranger is a solid melee casting combatant. Or just straight up Nature Cleric.
When you mean Alchemy, I'm assuming you're talking about potions? In which case, you're right. The catch is mixing "Craftsman" with "Adventurer" without slowing things down.
I agree that there should be more melee support options. But the Battlemaster with Sentinel does well in this regard.
Isn't that kinda what the Eldritch Knight does?
Thief + Healer is a pretty effective combat medic. Although, I'll be honest and say that any combat healing without magic is still very fantastical.
I could kinda see that, but I think that Draconic could easily solve the Fiend issue, and I'm not sure why a reflavored Warlock couldn't do this.
I'd be interested to see the Summoner, but Warlocks kinda do that with their standard lore.
The Archfey or Fiend patrons would do well as reflavored dragon pacts.
I guess for the arcane half-caster, I need to ask first why the Eldritch Knight + Wizard, or Bladesinger + Rogue doesn't work.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's important to identify why the existing content isn't enough. That points out exactly what is missing, and how to fill in that niche.

[Raiki]

I'm curious to know which ones and why you think they're impossible to replicate. There are certain mechanical pieces that just don't work in 5e, but the themes are much more accessible. Any translation between editions will be much more about thematics than about mechanics, because the core philosophy differs strongly.

There's also the fact that about 90% (rough estimate) of 3.5e classes were just utter crap either in concept or implementation. Most of the PrCs are better as sub-classes, and most of the base classes just sucked. I'm more than happy to discard all of those in exchange for ones that work well together.

I fear we're going to have a difficult time having a conversation about this. To my worldview, the mechanics are the game, because without them it's just collaborative storytelling. That's not meant to be dismissive. My group loves a lot of RP, and I'm probably the hammiest of all of us when I get to play. But we can tell stories without needing D&D to help us. We look to WotC for the design and relative balancing of mechanics that let us add measurable and variable statistics to our storytelling, because we find "just make up whatever you want" to be boring. As a group, and myself especially, we find character creation and build designing to be fun parts of the game.

I would also strongly argue against your assertion that most 3.x classes were crap. They weren't all Tier 1, but...we wouldn't want them to be? I can only think of a few examples of classes that were irredeemably bad. CW Samurai, Spirit Shaman, Truenamer if you didn't house rule the formulas... Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other base classes that were terrible, so long as you're not defining "terrible" as "not the Batman wizard or CoDZilla". For prestige classes, they were more hit or miss, but I still think they're the most tragic casualty of the transition to 5e. Having a class to work towards, and being able to refocus or specialize your character as they grew, that was one of the coolest things in the whole game. It also solved the "Well...I'll just take another level of [Class], I guess?" problem, where the book makes all the choices for you and you're punished with a weak character if you deviate from the path.

To answer your direct question, I don't see a way to replicate the mechanics of:


The Alienist (Focused on summoning a custom type of templated creature.)

The Blood Magus (Using blood to empower spells, making skin scrolls and blood potions, and literally jumping into a dude and violently bursting out of a different dude. Which may be the most tragic loss of a thematic ability in the history of gaming.)

The Effigy Master (Or literally any way of creating or controlling constructs...? I could be wrong on that, but I certainly haven't seen it.)

The Enlightened Fist (No, the Way of Four Elements doesn't count. It's a monk with a few tricks, not a spellcaster with martial arts abilities.)

The Fatespinner (Or any type of luck manipulation, barring one, admittedly great, feat.)

The Green Star Adept (This one was pretty bad, but that wasn't the question. There's no way to turn yourself construct-y.)

The Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil (On the fly modifiable defensive magic.)

The Mage of the Arcane Order (Borrowing spells from other casters. Weird, but neat. And unrecreatable in 5e.)

The Master Transmogrifist (This is my "one that got away". I was always going to play this "next game", and then the only other 3.5 GM in our group moved. Modifying the shapes you can take with transmutation magic is just such a cool idea. This one breaks my heart, and I can't say anything else about it.)

The Wayfarer Guide (Technically? There's no way to modify your teleportation I guess. I'm not going to argue hard for this one, but I will include it. It's number 10 of 8, anyway.)

[MeeposFire]

I would not say that most 3e classes suck. Heck many of the problems are less related to the class than it is how badly the edition messed up how the action economy actually works. Anybody who needs to use the full attack action for most of their combat prowess is starting WAY behind the 8 ball and it is due to being forced to use the full attack action.

Oddly I did not have an issue with the spirit shaman and its casting is much like what we have in 5e now.


The truenamer had a problem that you needed to do a metric ton of optimization work just to get the class to work as it probably should but if you had put that much work into anything else you could have done so much more. And for most people putting that much work in to make it function is just not fun (though the stuff it could do was fun you just had to change how the class worked I eventually went with a more 3e warlock mechanic approach).

A lot of splat classes work better than the core classes but they are also a lot more disposable as concepts and I do feel that the game lost a lot of charm by having too many base classes that just did not add much. Many of the classes just take the same concept and give it a slight tweak and call it a whole new class. Even at the start we have this issue.

Then again I am a full on lover of the 3e binder class lore and general mechanics (even if I think it needs some tweaks) and I rather like 3e warlocks and dragonfire adepts (which are essentially alternative warlocks).

The edition has lots of problems and it actively works against you if you use a weapon but I would not say that the classes are mostly trash.

[Max_Killjoy]

If I want to play Onos T'oolan or Mok or Lady Envy from the Memories of Ice (Malazan Book of the Fallen), I don't just need a new subclass, I need a different game system. 5E doesn't do any of those concepts, by design.


I need to read that series sometime.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Honestly, I fail to see what's the issue with those stats? That's better than standard array (both in 3.5 and 5e), and it's a simple (and honestly, quite generous) houserule, rather than a homebrew per sé.
It also meant my highest modifier was a +2 at the start, which is pretty weak, especially with a MAD character like a paladin. :smallannoyed:

Basically a milestone advancement. Besides, in 3.5, if you died, you lost a level anyway when brought back to life, regardless of the means. Again, I find this method is just fine and in line with the above houserule.
Also, being what you described a warrior charging into melee with big ugly monsters is pretty much the whole reason why you may get killed often (which is why you should invest in AC a LOT -- obviously not forgetting your HP).
I WAS investing in AC and HP, but the above attribute score meant that my CON was third place behind my STR and CHA. And the fights where I charged in were primarily one-on-one. And that still didn't change the fact that I was lagging behind the others in the party who WEREN'T dying every other adventure, and I had a box I LITERALLY couldn't open until I was 16th level, and we were accellerating to the final session and I was basically going to finish the campaign without being able to open the box the GM specifically gave to me! :smallmad:

Slightly unrelated, but who's to say who has experience and knowledge of game design and who doesn't? How can you tell by the name of an author if they have experience or not? For example, I've literally studied game design, but I doubt you've ever heard of me. Does one's lack of publicity automatically mean that they don't know what they're doing? I think not.
Of course not! If I played with you and you introduced some homebrew, I'd trust your experience. But I'm NOT able to play with you, and the people I DO play with at the moment don't have that kind of experience, so with looking at homebrew stuff written by published RPG writers at least has some guarantee of quality with the inexperienced group I play with.

[MaxWilson]

Hmm.

Ok. I have just figured out that my current Barbarian is in fact a lot like Onos Toolan (resurrected though). But he is definitely the simplest in concept of the 3. Actually I can't remember much about Mok other than fighting with 2 swords.

Granted, good natured barbarian philosopher with a greatsword pretty much covers my go to D&D character.

I'd say Onos T'oolan's concept is much, much bigger than "good-natured barbarian philosopher." More like "tragic Neanderthal zombie one-man army with a dry sense of humor (and weird magic powers which the author never bothers to explain the limits of)," and 5E doesn't do the "one-man army" part because of bounded accuracy.


I need to read that series sometime.

Yeah, the Seguleh's "punitive expedition" consisting of three men is a high point of the whole series. Though to be fair, it isn't entirely clear that the Seguleh punitive expedition would have succeeded if Lady Envy hadn't joined up/taken over.

[Raiki]

I would not say that most 3e classes suck. Heck many of the problems are less related to the class than it is how badly the edition messed up how the action economy actually works. Anybody who needs to use the full attack action for most of their combat prowess is starting WAY behind the 8 ball and it is due to being forced to use the full attack action.

Oddly I did not have an issue with the spirit shaman and its casting is much like what we have in 5e now.


The truenamer had a problem that you needed to do a metric ton of optimization work just to get the class to work as it probably should but if you had put that much work into anything else you could have done so much more. And for most people putting that much work in to make it function is just not fun (though the stuff it could do was fun you just had to change how the class worked I eventually went with a more 3e warlock mechanic approach).

A lot of splat classes work better than the core classes but they are also a lot more disposable as concepts and I do feel that the game lost a lot of charm by having too many base classes that just did not add much. Many of the classes just take the same concept and give it a slight tweak and call it a whole new class. Even at the start we have this issue.

Then again I am a full on lover of the 3e binder class lore and general mechanics (even if I think it needs some tweaks) and I rather like 3e warlocks and dragonfire adepts (which are essentially alternative warlocks).

The edition has lots of problems and it actively works against you if you use a weapon but I would not say that the classes are mostly trash.

You're dead-on about the action economy and the inherent bias against martial classes. I tried at least half a dozen house rules to remedy that, but I honestly don't think it can be done elegantly within the 3e framework.

I feel like now would be a good time to mention that my table did make the switch to 5e, and I think it was the right decision. The base attack system was a disaster, advantage/disadvantage is a beautifully elegant solution to the "+1 for WF, +2 for flanking, -2 from being dazzled, attacking his flat-footed touch AC, but he's using Blur so there's a 20% miss chance" problem, the short/long rest system is better than the per day/minute/encounter system, and I like the combined skills like Perception and Stealth. I think 5e did miss the mark with the Proficiency system (You're either good or bad at something, with no gradation at all. And the Fighter can't swing a quarterstaff any better than the Wizard.), but on the whole, it's a mechanically superior system. I just don't like the lack of options relative to 3.5.

As to the specific points:

The Truenamer's problem was that you could only add 1 skill point per level, but the DC went up by 2. Fixing the DC formula makes it a pretty okay class with one quick fix.

I haven't looked at Spirit Shaman in years, but didn't they have to spend rounds "retrieving" their spells before being able to cast them?

I love the Binder. It's badass. I bought a third party book called "Secrets of Pact Magic" that was basically just 3-4 more Binder-themed classes and a **** ton more Visages. If you ever touch 3e again, I can't recommend it highly enough.

And as a minor defense of the thematically-redundant base/prestige classes, even if they didn't have their own niche, they were great for kitbashing into more homebrew. :smallbiggrin:

[Max_Killjoy]

That certain lack of granularity is 5e's greatest weakness and greatest strength.

[MeeposFire]

You're dead-on about the action economy and the inherent bias against martial classes. I tried at least half a dozen house rules to remedy that, but I honestly don't think it can be done elegantly within the 3e framework.

I feel like now would be a good time to mention that my table did make the switch to 5e, and I think it was the right decision. The base attack system was a disaster, advantage/disadvantage is a beautifully elegant solution to the "+1 for WF, +2 for flanking, -2 from being dazzled, attacking his flat-footed touch AC, but he's using Blur so there's a 20% miss chance" problem, the short/long rest system is better than the per day/minute/encounter system, and I like the combined skills like Perception and Stealth. I think 5e did miss the mark with the Proficiency system (You're either good or bad at something, with no gradation at all. And the Fighter can't swing a quarterstaff any better than the Wizard.), but on the whole, it's a mechanically superior system. I just don't like the lack of options relative to 3.5.

As to the specific points:

The Truenamer's problem was that you could only add 1 skill point per level, but the DC went up by 2. Fixing the DC formula makes it a pretty okay class with one quick fix.

I haven't looked at Spirit Shaman in years, but didn't they have to spend rounds "retrieving" their spells before being able to cast them?

I love the Binder. It's badass. I bought a third party book called "Secrets of Pact Magic" that was basically just 3-4 more Binder-themed classes and a **** ton more Visages. If you ever touch 3e again, I can't recommend it highly enough.

And as a minor defense of the thematically-redundant base/prestige classes, even if they didn't have their own niche, they were great for kitbashing into more homebrew. :smallbiggrin:

As I recall Spirit shamans had to retrieve spells every day and could only have a few spells known per spell level in a given day but they could trade them out for any other druid spell the next day. So it is the precursor to how druids cast in 5e though the number of spells you would know at a time was different and in 3e it felt restrictive but it was cool that you could switch those spells every day.

[Arkhios]

It also meant my highest modifier was a +2 at the start, which is pretty weak, especially with a MAD character like a paladin. :smallannoyed:

I WAS investing in AC and HP, but the above attribute score meant that my CON was third place behind my STR and CHA. And the fights where I charged in were primarily one-on-one. And that still didn't change the fact that I was lagging behind the others in the party who WEREN'T dying every other adventure, and I had a box I LITERALLY couldn't open until I was 16th level, and we were accellerating to the final session and I was basically going to finish the campaign without being able to open the box the GM specifically gave to me! :smallmad:

I get that it has been frustrating. I really do. However, allow me to explain myself further:

Having played a Paladin in 3.5, I'd say that you really don't have to bump that charisma through the roof to begin with.

With "15 Down", I'd put the stats as follows:

Str 15, Dex 11, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 13

As I'm sure you know, 3.5 Paladins got their first potential spells at 4th level, and while an ability score of 11 was enough for casting 1st-level spells, an ability score of 12 gives the first bonus spell slot, and that's why I'd put 12 in Wisdom (since 3.5 paladins had a standard of 0 spell slots at 4th level!). It takes a good while before you really need to increase Wisdom over 12, because you get the chance to even cast 3rd level spells at 11th Paladin level. By that time, you're more than likely to have obtained at least a +2 Wisdom item, which is quite enough to cast up to 4th level spells (maximum for Paladins in 3.5)

However, spells were not that important for a 3.5 Paladin, to be entirely honest. A Paladin can get by with relatively low wisdom score, because most of their spells are buffs which don't care about spell saving throws, only about your caster level (which was at the time equal to ½ x Paladin level).

Charisma, on the other hand, is much more important for them, so I'd say it takes priority over Wisdom. As a Paladin, however, you are primarily a melee warrior, so your Strength (or Dexterity, if you prefer Weapon Finesse) and Constitution take priority over Charisma and Wisdom (in that order).
Not only does Paladin need Charisma for Smite Evil, they also benefit from it as a bonus to their saving throws. But it also benefits their ability to Turn Undead, and to use Lay on Hands.

Still, Paladins relied heavily on their weapons, so Strength (or, Dexterity; see above) is much, much more important to them than Charisma. To start with only just a +1 bonus to your saving throws is still more than what a Fighter could have. And it stacks with Cloak of Resistance. You might want to increase Charisma to 14 before increasing Strength to 16, but that's entirely up to you.
Having full base attack bonus, Str 15 with a modifier +2 is enough. It's certainly not the absolute best of the best, but it's not bad at all. As for Smite Evil, it was little more than a joke in 3.5, so I wouldn't really fret about it. It's a "nice to have" but not something you should get mad about if you missed with it. And if you hit, it's a welcome bonus. You may have just finished the baddie with one big hit, or softened it up for up-coming butt-kicking :smallbiggrin:

Dex 11 is mostly because at some point you might want to increase it by one, so that you'd get to ideal Dexterity modifier in regards to your AC with a Full-plate. Furthermore, you might also get your hands on Gloves of Dexterity (which can be worn at the same time with armor's gauntlets, and because the primary Strength enhancing item is a belt) so it might not be that necessary after all. If your group had a Ranger or Rogue or someone else who used Dexterity, they probably will have found an item with a better bonus by the time, so you might get the lesser version as they've become obsolete for other characters.

All in all, the above stats aren't that MAD as you might think at first. Sure, they're not godlike, but they're far from really bad. Heavy armor (preferably full-plate), a heavy shield, Ring of Protection/Shield of Faith, Amulet of Natural Armor/Barkskin, and maybe some other items, and you're set for some really high AC already. Constitution 14 is good enough for a d10 HD class.

Even further, despite Dwarves' Charisma penalty, personally I would make the paladin as a Dwarf, adjusting the ability scores to Str 15, Dex 11, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 12 after racials. Dwarves make perhaps the best tank characters I've played in 3.5.


Of course not! If I played with you and you introduced some homebrew, I'd trust your experience. But I'm NOT able to play with you, and the people I DO play with at the moment don't have that kind of experience, so with looking at homebrew stuff written by published RPG writers at least has some guarantee of quality with the inexperienced group I play with.

Feel free to take a look at and use what I've 'brewed. You can find my recent work from my signature. While some of them (Thug and Rage Mage being the most recent) haven't been tested, the others have seen a little playtime, and I've been given a lot of positive feedback regarding them from many people over the years. Still, I'm more than willing to adjust them if something is found broken or just messy.

[CantigThimble]

On class systems and class bloat:

I'd like to tell you about a system called Earthdawn. Earthdawn is a class-based system in which all adventurers are adepts of 15 disciplines. The disciplines are sets of abilities, but they're also philosophies, organizations in the world and built into the magic system. There's a great degree of freedom for interpretation within that for what particular abilities a character specializes in (or cross-discipline abilities they dabble in), how they interpret the class philosophy and which particular organizations they have membership in or support for, but the overall structure is there. A character in the world can say "I am a Swordmaster of the third circle" and that will give other characters in the world a lot of information about who they are and what they are capable of.

Earthdawn is a class-based system that embraces being class-based and ties lore and mechanics together to make a coherent whole.

D&D doesn't do that. It kind of wants to have its cake and eat it too. It uses class based mechanics but only ties them to worldbuilding very loosely, if at all. D&D also constantly adds more classes/subclasses.

My idea of why 'bloat' is a problem is that I don't like treating classes as grab bags of abilities to be mixed and matched until you have the end result that you want. I think the world makes more sense and is better when the classes all have a place within it. When every new book has 5 new subclasses and people expect to be able to play with any or all of them at any time, that strains the credulity of the setting. That style of 'pick a concept, now build it' is much better served by a more flexible classless system.

D&D kind of started as a more strictly class based system, but gradually evolved to more and more flexible until it became the hybrid between class-based and classless that it is now. Just look at the paladin. Paladins used to be a very specific and highly exclusive organization and philosophy, but that recieved constant pushback until that aspect became the window dressing it is at this point and it's just another grab-bag of abilities.

At a certain point, if you want to be able to make any fantasy character concept you want, you have to ask: "Why am I using a system where all the abilities are packaged up with other things I don't want and any character I make ends up being half made up of abilities that I never intended?"
And if you want character classes to matter you have to ask: "Why am I using a system with SO many classes from so many different fantasy concepts and tropes all jammed together?"

The answer to both of these is probably just that we're used to D&D and don't want to go through all the trouble to find and switch to a new system. Or couldn't get our group to do so even if we would.

So my solution is to take advantage of the variety in D&D without overloading things: Pick a palette of fantasy archetypes to have in the world, whether those are the 'classic' D&D ones or not, and give them definition within the setting, and limit games within that setting to those archetypes. If you just want to get away from some of the played out classic fantasy archetypes, then picking some new ones to build a setting with can really work well.
If you really need to go full kitchen sink, nothing excluded ever, then you would REALLY be better off with a classless system. Seriously.

[MoiMagnus]

So my solution is to take advantage of the variety in D&D without overloading things: Pick a palette of fantasy archetypes to have in the world, whether those are the 'classic' D&D ones or not, and give them definition within the setting, and limit games within that setting to those archetypes. If you just want to get away from some of the played out classic fantasy archetypes, then picking some new ones to build a setting with can really work well.
If you really need to go full kitchen sink, nothing excluded ever, then you would REALLY be better off with a classless system. Seriously.

I disagree at least partially.

Firstly, if I were to actually reduce the number of "classes" existing in the universe, I would do so AFTER the players chose their class and subclass.
In fact, if there is no druid in the group of PCs, I will most most likely NOT take time to develop the place in the lore of druids, and either avoid to talk about them or directly state that they don't exist in-universe. Same for warlocks. And non-PHB classes and sub-classes don't exist in my universes unless a PC take one, or I feel they fill a blank in the universe.

Secondly, you're probably missing why D&D classes are like they are. They are here to help the players find ideas of characters, not to reduce their choices. Hence their high number. They are here to give a roadmap to the player, from which he/she can personalize if they want to have their own unique character, or follow the "standard road" if they don't. They even can "break out" of the class system by multi-classing. Classes are also a way to communicate in one word to the other players and the DM "what kind of character you are", and subclasses to give a little more details on your character's specialties using few additional words.

[MeeposFire]

To me the game came closest to being classless in 3e. 4e and 5e really push the importance of classes and you don't really see people playing in 5e with 5 different classes in 20 levels but you could in 3e (in this case I would be lumping in prestige classes with the base classes for this purpose). 5e has a pretty good balance in how it entices you to stick with classes for a bit because in many cases you do not want to multiclass out a bunch of times willy nilly or you will hurt yourself in the short and/or long term. Leaving a class with extra attack before level 5 hurts once you get to level 5. Leaving a caster class before 3rd level spells can really hurt. If you are not careful in 5e you could lose out on ASIs that can really hurt you long term. 3e had much less put in place to keep you with any base class in general and that was partially from them finding that prestige classes were a big seller for them in earlish 3e in to mid 3.5 (where you start to base classes get much more attention and prestige classes in many of those classes are not as needed or desired). While generally my biggest gripes with 3e are related as a DM (I still refuse to DM it anymore and thankfully the people I have played with are as or more happy playing 4e or 5e to ask me to go back) the hodgepodge feeling I get from the 3e class system does annoy me even when I play so that now I tend to play classes in 3e that do not really require or do not benefit much from multiclassing (especially prestige classes) so now I tend to play factotums,dragonfire adepts, or binders (though that does not happen much because like I said the groups I play in now by far play other versions of D&D).

[Tharkun]

That brings up an interesting question: What's considered valid for 5e subclasses?

I guess it'd be anything that:


Can be scaled from level 1-20
Fits within one of the 12 original subclasses


And while that sounds really stupid, there are a lot of characters that wouldn't fit those guidelines. For example, many heroes/villains don't scale between levels 1-20 well, and go through dramatic shifts in power, and those aren't emulated with the 5e formula. 5e also doesn't have any class that sacrifices a part of their energy for temporary power, which could be a deal breaker if you're looking for a concept that relies on that.

I'd be interested to see other concepts that just straight up don't work in 5e without a lot of homebrew or new content.

If you are borrowing a concept from fiction. That concept is generally from a particular point in time of that character's development. It could be any level.
djw

[KorvinStarmast]

For Max Wilson

fighter, mage, thief, and priest.
FWIW, that is what you get if you start the game by using the free basic rules, and / or buying the starter set. It is indeed the core adventuring model.

It was all we needed back in the 70's, but of course new classes and class ideas kept cropping up. (Monks, assassins, druids, etc).

I am still trying to get my one homebrew that I like, circle of the flame druid, to not have holes in it. Not there yet.
Not ready for prime time.

[Marywn]

You know... There should be more ice spells man... I'm really wishing that there was more.

[Kane0]

You know... There should be more ice spells man... I'm really wishing that there was more.

Officially or homebrewy? Because if you took that request to the homebrew subforum you'd be set by the afternoon.

[Marywn]

Officially or homebrewy? Because if you took that request to the homebrew subforum you'd be set by the afternoon.

Offical, and thanks for the tip man!

[braveheart]

My playgroup actually has 4 DM's and all of us enjoy using our own homebrew content, but on top of that we also actually playtest them before we are willing to put them online, we actually started a podcast recording us playtesting the homebrew. Often after 3 or 4 sessions with a homebrew you start to notice places where it shines to brightly or is overly clunky. For example my friend made a "partners in crime" subclass, that focuses on giving a rogue a buffed familiar. Overall the subclass is weak, but we also through testing found a few mechanics that just didn't make flavorful sense, and were unwieldy at the table, a few tweaks latter and it plays as a more fluid and more in line with the strength of other classes.

Additionally my playgroup has a lot of experience, we started a weekly game back in pathfinder days, and have been playing weekly with 5e since its release.

Tldr: play tested homebrew an be balanced, and experienced players/GMs can create interesting and fairly unique ones.

[Man_Over_Game]

Offical, and thanks for the tip man!

I do agree that there should be more official options, but you can make a lot work just by reflavoring some of the existing spells, or even just shifting around existing stats.

For example, Fire and Cold are almost identical for how often they're resisted/vulnerable, so there's virtually no balance concern with changing Burning Hands to Freezing Hands.

For saving throws, there are generally two different "tiers", and you could just swap a saving throw in one tier for another.

High Tier: Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity.
Low Tier: Strength, Intelligence, Charisma.

So you could easily replace Hold Person with Freeze Person, changing the Wisdom Saving Throw to Constitution, and it'd probably work just fine.

You can also always downscale things and it'll probably still work out just fine. Making Divine Favor into Icebrand (Changing Radiant Damage to Cold) would still be balanced (but a slight bit weaker, since Radiant is more valuable than Cold).

The only thing that's weaker than Cold in terms of how often it's resisted are the weapon damage types (B/P/S) and Poison, so as long as you aren't changing Ray of Sickness into a Cold spell, you're making things slightly weaker rather than stronger.

[Raiki]

As I recall Spirit shamans had to retrieve spells every day and could only have a few spells known per spell level in a given day but they could trade them out for any other druid spell the next day. So it is the precursor to how druids cast in 5e though the number of spells you would know at a time was different and in 3e it felt restrictive but it was cool that you could switch those spells every day.

You are, of course, completely right. The Spirit Shaman is a perfectly fine class. I'd mixed its mechanic up with that of the Sha'ir from the Dragon Compendium. By my reading, the Sha'ir is...broken? And not in the good way? It takes between 2 rounds and 15 hours to prepare a single spell, and you have to cast it within a certain time frame or you lose it. AND you have to make a skill check to prepare each spell or you just fail and have to try again. I've never seen one played, but even with a relatively high level of system mastery for 3.5, I was never able to figure out any possible way to make it viable.


That certain lack of granularity is 5e's greatest weakness and greatest strength.

It works well for the largest part of the system, but I'll never recover from the wound 5e dealt me by ripping away my precious skill points.

[TrashTrash]

If you know where to look, it's not that bad.
Personally, the most "homebrewy" thing I've written into my half-finished and discarded attempts is a Suspicion system. Kinda acts as a reverse ability, the lower your Suspicion the better things are. You do something shady around an NPC, your Suspicion goes up. Do something benefiting the NPCs, or right a wrong with them nearby, your Suspicion goes down. Trying to deter my players from burning down churches and taverns for fun :smallsigh:.

I look at the chances of finding a good system as a probability game: If I find a ton of bad ones, I'm mathematically increasing my chances of finding a great one.

[noob]

If you know where to look, it's not that bad.
Personally, the most "homebrewy" thing I've written into my half-finished and discarded attempts is a Suspicion system. Kinda acts as a reverse ability, the lower your Suspicion the better things are. You do something shady around an NPC, your Suspicion goes up. Do something benefiting the NPCs, or right a wrong with them nearby, your Suspicion goes down. Trying to deter my players from burning down churches and taverns for fun :smallsigh:.

I look at the chances of finding a good system as a probability game: If I find a ton of bad ones, I'm mathematically increasing my chances of finding a great one.

Assuming you never try twice the same system.

[TrashTrash]

Assuming you never try twice the same system.

Yeah, there is that :smallbiggrin:

[GlenSmash!]

I'd say Onos T'oolan's concept is much, much bigger than "good-natured barbarian philosopher." More like "tragic Neanderthal zombie one-man army with a dry sense of humor (and weird magic powers which the author never bothers to explain the limits of)," and 5E doesn't do the "one-man army" part because of bounded accuracy.

Resurrected and with the Barghast he loses both the zombie and one-man-army thing though.

However since my barb is a Zealot he does get a little bit of free Resurrection, and if the campaign gets to 14 fighting beyond death.