PDA

View Full Version : Homebrew: Practical Application



Fax Celestis
2007-11-10, 01:35 PM
There are reasons both for and against allowing homebrew into your games, not the least of which is an attempt to retain any semblance of balance the game originally has. I've seen my fair share of godawful overpowered homebrewed feats and classes, and balancing a prestige class or a spell is akin to an art form in its complexity. But there are also homebrew fixes or additions that enrich the game or balance the playing field.

I find it difficult to fathom why someone would not be at the very least willing to read over and compare balance a proffered homebrew. An informed opinion is an intelligent opinion, and I know that most DMs pride themselves on their intelligence: why should this be any different?

Enlighten me, then, as to the pros and cons you see for homebrew within your games, and the reasons behind your acceptances and denials.

Aquaseafoam
2007-11-10, 01:50 PM
As all my attention at the moment is focused on a massive homebrew world, I am very open to homebrewed things. If I like it enough, it gets added to my campaign setting guide and they get their name in the credits.

I can easily see why many DM's would avoid allowing homebrewed things into their game. For one, just take a look at how many 3.5 books there are out there, you can expect a large chunk of that to be reasonably balanced, no need to add things in of questionable balance.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-10, 01:54 PM
I can easily see why many DM's would avoid allowing homebrewed things into their game. For one, just take a look at how many 3.5 books there are out there, you can expect a large chunk of that to be reasonably balanced, no need to add things in of questionable balance.

I would agree with this sentiment were it not the case that there are a wide variety of concepts that are not within any WotC book--or even a third-party one.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-10, 01:54 PM
Pros:

Compenetration between players and DM's due to working together on a prospective homebrew.

Fresh air for a game.

Learning balance by attempting to create or fix a 'brew.

Being able to add the "?" and "Profit!" lines after "Deciding to make the game more entertaining and interesting".

Cons:


Shadow weave doppelgangers of everything above.

Fhaolan
2007-11-10, 02:00 PM
Most of my games have extensive homebrewing, because I have a very specific campaign setting that has built up over many years of gaming (and many different rulesets, from the original D&D white-cover books, all the way up to the current D&D system, plus Paladium, GURPs, and other less-well-known game systems). It's just not possible to play in that setting without some modifications of the core rules.

On the other hand, if I am having extensive turnover of players, or running convention or play-by-post (forum, email, or snail-mail) games, I have abandoned that campaign world and run 'RAW' games. Simply so that all the players have a common basis to work off of. Homebrewing is harder to do in that scenario, as the players tend to not have the time to review homebrew material to the extent that is really necessary to play properly.

Basically my opinion is that all homebrew material should be known or understood by all the players in the game. I have seen a number of homebrew-style games where the only one who knows or is even aware of the homebrew rules is the Game Master. In some cases the players are aware of the rules, but don't realize that they're homebrew so when they go to other games they get very confused and sometimes upset when the game doesn't work the way they understand.

One of the things that makes stuff difficult is when homebrew rules are created to solve a problem or to make the rules conform to the setting better, and then a later official suppliment is released that addresses the same issue, but differently. This happened to me with Centaurs in 3rd edition. Centaurs are an important part of my campaign setting. So, when I started a game in 3rd edition in that setting, one of the players wanted to build a Centaur. So I homebrewed some rules to allow for 1st level Centaur characters. It worked fairly well. Then Savage Species came out, with a similar solution to the problem, but it was sufficiently different that it would mean rebuilding her character from square one to make it fit the rules. I stuck with my homebrew version to save her the trouble of rebuilding. I haven't even looked at the 3.5 version of the Centaur in Races of the Wild, so I don't know how different that is from the Savage Species version or my homebrew version.

Matthew
2007-11-10, 02:04 PM
I'm not sure what you are asking. In what context is the Home Brew being presented? Player to DM? DM to Player? DM to DM?

In general, D&D is a game with a lot of 'extra rules'. I can understand a DM wanting to keep them to a managable number. With that in mind, a DM is more likely to use official material than home brew material for a few reasons. Official material is supposedly professionally developed, so it should by and large be good. Even when it's not, there is a lot of discussion and 'unofficial' platesting going on in the community. This is generally not the case with home brew material because it doesn't have the exposure and support that official rulebooks do.

People playing the game is the biggest single factor. For something to become accepted in the wider community, it needs to be played and commented on.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-10, 02:07 PM
First of all, I must say that I only allow my own homebrews easily. In the past I made mistakes but I have learn from them. Now I review homebrews in great detail, breaking down the information much like how I critique in this forum. In my games I first look to see if the class/spell/whatever is setting appropriate since all of my games are set in a unique homebrew world. Second, I skim over the homebrew in question to see if anything is outright too confusing, if that is the case, its out. Thirdly, I read of the homebrew in question more in depth to find anything that's too confusing that I missed in the skim through. If I find something, I don't allow it. Fourthly, I look over the balance of the homebrew against all my allowed material. It is imperative that I check the balance against only the other material I am allowing. In some cases, I only allow weaker class, or disallow certain feats that this homebrew runs on. If it does not fit in the balance of the particular campaign, I don't allow it. And lastly, if this is for a player, I look to see exactly what this is supposed to do and see if there is some material I have already allowed that is similar to the homebrew in question, if so I point the player in the direction of that other materila, otherwise I allow it but retain the ability to disallow the homebrew later if it proves to be unbalanced in game play.

As for pros and cons of allowing homebrews (note this is only the homebrews of others, not me):
Pros

It allows for a wider spectrum of choices
Certain neat abilities that otherwise would not have been considered
New flavor and interesting fluff combinations
Fixes to old unbalances
May interest the group in using a variant to get a more unique experience


Cons

I, as DM, am not familiar with the homebrew
It may allow for abilities that disrupt play because such abilities are not present normally
It could seem balanced at first, but sufficient play-testing has not been done, thus it proves too under/overpowered
Causes confusion in other players not aware of the existence of the homebrew
One player gets his homebrew allowed, but the other does not resulting in grudges and inter-party conflicts
Other DMs get caught up in the flashiness and disregard the balance issues

I've had experience with most of the above, both pros and cons.

I hope that helps :smallbiggrin:

ocato
2007-11-10, 02:07 PM
I find that a bit of the time, if you looked around, you could do a decent job of making your idea without homebrew. Pretty much, homebrew material has a habit of being at least moderately strong because a lot of homebrewers lack your skillful eye, Fax. My personal stance is that I'll review it, if it's reasonable, we'll try it. Feats are usually slightly more acceptable than classes, but a lot of it is just ridiculous, especially when it is a character you could make without homebrew, but they just stuck some stuff in so they didn't have to take another dip level or something, and they think their special homebrew is a slick way to powergame a little worse.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-10, 02:11 PM
I find that a bit of the time, if you looked around, you could do a decent job of making your idea without homebrew. Pretty much, homebrew material has a habit of being at least moderately strong because a lot of homebrewers lack your skillful eye, Fax. My personal stance is that I'll review it, if it's reasonable, we'll try it. Feats are usually slightly more acceptable than classes, but a lot of it is just ridiculous, especially when it is a character you could make without homebrew, but they just stuck some stuff in so they didn't have to take another dip level or something, and they think their special homebrew is a slick way to powergame a little worse.

Hm, that is interesting. To me, I'm more open to classes (despite my various bad experiences) than I am to anything else, especially feats and spells. I find that the things I am best at making myself (races and base classes) I am more open to accepting because I at least think I have a better understanding of them.

Of course, I may be a hypocrite and push my own work that may prove to be unbalanced in someway, its what I always fear...

Reinboom
2007-11-10, 02:18 PM
I like knowing all the material available, and being able to quickly access it. Also, balance and availability to the players are also major factors.

I, for one, offer almost anything at wiki.faxcelestis.net to my players. It's reasonably accessible, and I can depend on the host not going down - the material shouldn't just disappear. It also gives me a grounds to test my own stuff, as well as make the homebrew I use for certain NPCs known and available, as well as review-able.

I've been personally reviewing over things in the homebrew section quite a bit (though I rarely comment), and have been picking out favored ideas. However, it's hard to keep track when there's just so much there to go over.
Though this does bring me ideas...

Fax Celestis
2007-11-10, 02:48 PM
Hm, that is interesting. To me, I'm more open to classes (despite my various bad experiences) than I am to anything else, especially feats and spells. I find that the things I am best at making myself (races and base classes) I am more open to accepting because I at least think I have a better understanding of them.

I'm very much the same way.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-10, 03:09 PM
I'm very much the same way.

I think most homebrewers do find that they are better at balancing some things more so than others and thus work in those areas. The biggest problem is some people don't realize what their good with. Of course, it might also be how you think. I'm a CS major with a creative knack, but I think extremely logically (which is why I'm good at CS). This ordered think helps when designing something with a linear progression with set beginning and end points. Monsters are a lot more variable and thus I have a harder time with them. Feats and spells and such are also highly variable in certain situations and not so rigidly structured as base classes.

That's my view of homebrewers.

Quietus
2007-11-10, 07:49 PM
Hm, that is interesting. To me, I'm more open to classes (despite my various bad experiences) than I am to anything else, especially feats and spells. I find that the things I am best at making myself (races and base classes) I am more open to accepting because I at least think I have a better understanding of them.

Of course, I may be a hypocrite and push my own work that may prove to be unbalanced in someway, its what I always fear...


I'm very much the same way.

I'm curious, why is this? I've never really found it difficult to represent a particular character with the mass of things available and a little refluffing, but I do find that sometimes, I feel the need to make a feat that doesn't exist, because whatever I'm attempting to accomplish isn't available in the current system.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-10, 08:04 PM
I'm curious, why is this? I've never really found it difficult to represent a particular character with the mass of things available and a little refluffing, but I do find that sometimes, I feel the need to make a feat that doesn't exist, because whatever I'm attempting to accomplish isn't available in the current system.

For me, it's not so much a missing or broken class, it's a missing or broken mechanic. The Loup du Noir made Wild Shape psionic and not broken. The HiSB Paladin made the paladin interesting and mechanically dynamic. The Penumbracarnate comingled Incarnum and Shadowcasting. Really, that's what it's all about, at least for me: making the game better mechanically. Fluff is malleable, alterable, thievable, removable, or otherwise editable; mechanics, on the other hand, are not.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-10, 08:19 PM
I'm curious, why is this? I've never really found it difficult to represent a particular character with the mass of things available and a little refluffing, but I do find that sometimes, I feel the need to make a feat that doesn't exist, because whatever I'm attempting to accomplish isn't available in the current system.

I think part of it is what you're looking for. I ran a oriental game and my players wanted more of an anime style to it and ToB wasting what they were looking for. They wanted more spirit-world stuff that just isn't in D&D passed the spirit shaman which isn't what they wanted either. I think its because I have yet to run a "normal" campaign. All my worlds have weird quirks and I always have new races for them. And sometimes, like Fax said, you need to fix a mechanic. For the LotR D20 I saw it as a chance to make a low-magic setting that had endurance for long combats so you could have multi-day battles with the characters jumping from encounter to encounter. Except for ToB, that just does not exist in D&D. Thus I made new classes to reflect that endurance and melded fighter and warblade to effectively make a vanilla class that is easy, but fixed with ToB.

Of course, besides LotR D20 and my work with Avatar D20, I mostly work with races. That is one area of D&D that is lacking. Most races seem to be variants of humans and I want something different. So I look to mythology mostly and that created the Naga-Anu, Garuda and tons of other races I've never posted. And sometimes I'm bored so I start writing up a unique race that vastly different from anything D&D normal has and has a unique, interesting and fun to RP outlook on life, that's how the Globble was born.
[/rambling]

Mr.Moron
2007-11-10, 09:26 PM
Personally I like the idea of homebrew. It stands a better chance of seeing broken things revised than official stuff does, and the RAI is probably easier to access too. Heck, if it's broken and stays broken at least it's usually because somebody thought it was a cool concept instead of just poor testing.

Of course I might be biased, I'm the sort of person who has always tried to make custom content for anything they get their hands on. I tried modify the monopoly rules as a child. I randomly made a class off the top of my head because somebody posted looking for "An assassin-like base class" just the other day.

nerulean
2007-11-11, 08:34 AM
My general opinion on player-created homebrew when I'm DMing is to ask the player, "exactly what are you going to do with this feat/spell/whatever?" I'm not too bad at balance, but there's always some synergising class or feat that I've overlooked that could ramp the power level up to the point of brokenness. If the player doesn't tell me up front what combos they're using it in, then they don't get to use it.

Prometheus
2007-11-11, 08:18 PM
It isn't about the player, the material, or the originator of the homebrew. It's about the DM. As a DM I will accept any homebrew, on a case by case basis. It seems to be that to only use what is written, is to seriously limit your campagins.

Side Rant: How many people argue over how creatures that are "usually evil" are supposed to act or what plane a certain creature it supposed to come from? My point, who gives a flip? If you don't like it, change it! It's not like the actual characters the players are playing should know anyway. Be fair, be self-consistent and above all have fun- that's what I say!

Kizara
2007-11-11, 09:14 PM
Well, here's the thing.

As a DM, I create the world I use to play in anew for every campaign, but I keep most of the DnD conventions (Elves are elves, Pelor is Pelor, etc). To me, this has really nothing to do with whether I allow homebrew material in the form of classes/feats/spells.

I am very hesitant about allowing such things, if I did not have a hand in creating them, because I automatically am oppositional and suspecious towards anything I'm not familiar and comfortable with. This also results in me banning any new concepts in the forms of suppliments or books that I have not read in-depth.

For example, if someone in a game I was DMing wanted to play something that Fax had created, I would likely respond to them with "No, but I'll have a look at it and see what I can do." This is not somehow a shot at Fax, but I do not think my vision of the game or it's balance is the same as his.

Likewise, if someone created or wants to create something unique themselves, I will be hesitant but not totally against allowing it, assuming they truely need to create something unique in order to RP their character concept. If the current mechanics can sensibly represent their character concept, I see no reason to invent new ones.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-11, 09:19 PM
The one con I care about: it would take way too damn long, as a DM, to look over everything and make sure it's balanced if homebrew is included. With published (or preferably, WotC-published) material, it's a much narrower and more familiar field.