PDA

View Full Version : Unbalanced Homebrews?



headhoncho
2007-11-12, 03:04 PM
Call me a purist, but I have a strong preference for published works. This is not to say that there aren't some pretty unbalanced published works (3.0 Power Critical Feat, Frenzied Berserker, Arcane Hierophant, stacked gestalt spellcasting classes, Ur-Priest, certain undercosted magic items, etc. etc.), of course, but by and large, the level of "extremeness" seems to be at least a little bit under control. While we could go on and on about how very few of the published supplements may actually be playtested either, it does seem that at least some attention is paid to game design and balance issues. And to the extent some of the published works fail the balance test, a DM can simply rule them out.

But whenever I see a homebrew prestige class, feat, magic item, or whatever, my guess is that at least 75% of them are unbalanced. (Obviously, YMMV as to both the percentage and the definition of "unbalanced.") I've been pondering as to the reasons why this might be, and I was wondering what your thoughts are about it?

Is it that the people most interested in game design are also the people who are more inclined toward powergaming and/or minmaxing? (And lest you think I am using those terms disparagingly, I consider myself to be in this category.)

Is it that people who have a passion to homebrew something are already emotionally attached to that particular concept, thus decreasing their objectivity toward the final product?

Is it that people are trying to fill a gap that they perceive, even though the gap might have been specifically contemplated by WotC as a built-in limitation or restriction on power levels?

Is it that people who design homebrews really just want their designs to be used, thus incentivizing the maximization of "miles per gallon" in the hopes of attracting greater attention and interest?

Or is it something else entirely?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, are there some solid and consistent examples of quality, BALANCED homebrew content that people can point me to? I'm very curious. If I can find some stuff that doesn't automatically trigger my (perhaps overly sensitive) "game balance violation" detector, I might actually reconsider my innate bias and prejudice and use some of the stuff in one of my own campaigns, rather than my current, reflexive "No."

Disclaimer: I am targeting no one in particular, and if my observations obviously do not apply to your particular homebrew, then we ought to be cool, right? :-)

HH

Baron Corm
2007-11-12, 03:12 PM
Most things you'll find are more unbalanced for two reasons (these are my reasons anyway):

1. People who homebrew think the game as it is is unbalanced, so they try to create classes which fit their idea of what power level the game should be at.

2. People who homebrew don't playtest their homebrews first, they attempt to perfect them first. They put them up to the community to work on in this forum, because that's what this forum is for. Putting up something that was completely balanced would be kind of pointless.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-12, 03:14 PM
Call me a purist, but I have a strong preference for published works. This is not to say that there aren't some pretty unbalanced published works (3.0 Power Critical Feat, Frenzied Berserker, Arcane Hierophant, stacked gestalt spellcasting classes, Ur-Priest, certain undercosted magic items, etc. etc.), of course, but by and large, the level of "extremeness" seems to be at least a little bit under control. While we could go on and on about how very few of the published supplements may actually be playtested either, it does seem that at least some attention is paid to game design and balance issues. And to the extent some of the published works fail the balance test, a DM can simply rule them out.

But whenever I see a homebrew prestige class, feat, magic item, or whatever, my guess is that at least 75% of them are unbalanced. (Obviously, YMMV as to both the percentage and the definition of "unbalanced.") I've been pondering as to the reasons why this might be, and I was wondering what your thoughts are about it?

Is it that the people most interested in game design are also the people who are more inclined toward powergaming and/or minmaxing? (And lest you think I am using those terms disparagingly, I consider myself to be in this category.)

Is it that people who have a passion to homebrew something are already emotionally attached to that particular concept, thus decreasing their objectivity toward the final product?

Is it that people are trying to fill a gap that they perceive, even though the gap might have been specifically contemplated by WotC as a built-in limitation or restriction on power levels?

Is it that people who design homebrews really just want their designs to be used, thus incentivizing the maximization of "miles per gallon" in the hopes of attracting greater attention and interest?

Or is it something else entirely?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, are there some solid and consistent examples of quality, BALANCED homebrew content that people can point me to? I'm very curious. If I can find some stuff that doesn't automatically trigger my (perhaps overly sensitive) "game balance violation" detector, I might actually reconsider my innate bias and prejudice and use some of the stuff in one of my own campaigns, rather than my current, reflexive "No."

Disclaimer: I am targeting no one in particular, and if my observations obviously do not apply to your particular homebrew, then we ought to be cool, right? :-)

HH

Well, you could start with what's in this post. Not to toot my own horn or anything.

headhoncho
2007-11-12, 03:15 PM
Most things you'll find are more unbalanced for two reasons (these are my reasons anyway):

1. People who homebrew think the game as it is is unbalanced, so they try to create classes which fit their idea of what power level the game should be at.

2. People who homebrew don't playtest their homebrews first, they attempt to perfect them first. They put them up to the community to work on in this forum, because that's what this forum is for. Putting up something that was completely balanced would be kind of pointless.

1 is an interesting point-of-view. I hadn't really considered that. Although it does beg the question of whether it's an arms race, a question which WotC certainly has not helped with its "supplement a month" mentality.

2, I think I would consider a bit differently. Certainly it's awesome to get feedback here, and I can absolutely see the value in that. But wouldn't it be better to self-limit as much as possible to help get the concept there, rather than starting at an extreme?

HH

Sam Panda
2007-11-12, 03:17 PM
Yeah, my homebrews were all put up here solely for the reason that I needed some people to critique it so I would be able to balance it better.

You should try giving constructive criticism to unbalanced homebrews, like mines!

headhoncho
2007-11-12, 03:21 PM
Well, you could start with what's in this post. Not to toot my own horn or anything.

Thanks, I'll take a look!

HH

headhoncho
2007-11-12, 03:23 PM
Yeah, my homebrews were all put up here solely for the reason that I needed some people to critique it so I would be able to balance it better.

You should try giving constructive criticism to unbalanced homebrews, like mines!

I'd be happy to. Would you like to point me to a couple that are still in draft (as opposed to substantially final) form?

HH

Umarth
2007-11-12, 04:59 PM
I'd say it's a combination of three things.

You caught two of them:



Is it that people who have a passion to homebrew something are already emotionally attached to that particular concept, thus decreasing their objectivity toward the final product?

Is it that people who design homebrews really just want their designs to be used, thus incentivizing the maximization of "miles per gallon" in the hopes of attracting greater attention and interest?


I think the third is we see a fair number of folks who are trying out homebrewing things for the first time and when you first start you tend to make mistakes.

Homebrewing requires a good knowledge of how things are going to interact with the current rules and how it's going to be used/abused in game play. That understanding is something that only comes with experience and time.


My personal test for balance on this boards is posting something and if it doesn't get a reply then I know nothing is obviously broken on it.

Sam Panda
2007-11-12, 09:20 PM
Headhoncho, the 2 classes and race in my signature are still in the balancing phase, if you want to check those out :D please do.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-12, 09:23 PM
The best test for balance is to ask yourself two questions: First, "Do I want to play this?" The answer should be, "Yes." The second question is, "Will everyone want to play this?" The answer should be, "No."

Mr.Moron
2007-11-12, 09:45 PM
The best test for balance is to ask yourself two questions: First, "Do I want to play this?" The answer should be, "Yes." The second question is, "Will everyone want to play this?" The answer should be, "No."

I think the problem with asking those questions is some people have trouble with perspective, I'm one of them. When I think of something I like conceptually, I find it appealing even if the mechanics don't wind up panning out.It's hard to think objectively about your own work sometimes.

Anyway, to the OP. If you want, you can check out this:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60233

It's a project of mine, not finalized. It's actually in testing stages, though concerns tend lean towards it being too weak, than too strong. Either way, it'll probably wind up tweaked more.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-12, 10:17 PM
Have you looked into the Avatar D20 project? Seriously, that has gotten a lot of attention and is pretty big. Plus we're doing a very thorough balancing. I'm running a number of play-test battles at various levels to weed out imbalance and it is progressing rapidly. If you want links: Bender classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54063), Martial Artist class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61352), Bender Play-test Analysis (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63016), Avatar D20 Play-test OOC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62392) (the second post has links to current and past battles in the PbP forums).

Also, not to sound too arrogant, but I've gotten a lot of good responses to my Globbles. Actually, it makes me kind of nervous that everyone has said its pretty balanced :smalleek: I guess I'm waiting for some of the more well-known 'brewers to check it out and give a thumbs up or down on the balance :smallfrown:

Anyway, go ahead and check out my projects here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3506637&postcount=13)!
I'm right under Fax, so you could just scroll down if you want something a lot less overwhelming :smallwink:

headhoncho
2007-11-13, 02:20 PM
My personal test for balance on this boards is posting something and if it doesn't get a reply then I know nothing is obviously broken on it.

I think that's a pretty good test, actually.

HH

headhoncho
2007-11-13, 02:21 PM
The best test for balance is to ask yourself two questions: First, "Do I want to play this?" The answer should be, "Yes." The second question is, "Will everyone want to play this?" The answer should be, "No."

I think that's another good test, although I'd narrow it to say, "Will everyone who wants to play this general archetype (arcane, divine, warrior, rogue) want to play this?"

HH

hamstard4ever
2007-11-13, 03:11 PM
Is it that the people most interested in game design are also the people who are more inclined toward powergaming and/or minmaxing? (And lest you think I am using those terms disparagingly, I consider myself to be in this category.)

The two do tend to be related, I think, inasmuch as they both indicate an interest in mechanical analysis. I don't really notice much of a trend in design/crunch-inclined players coming up with especially overpowered homebrews, though. They might be a little above the average power level of WotC published material, but they generally stay well shy of the most powerful splatbook stuff.


Is it that people who have a passion to homebrew something are already emotionally attached to that particular concept, thus decreasing their objectivity toward the final product?

Could be.


Is it that people are trying to fill a gap that they perceive, even though the gap might have been specifically contemplated by WotC as a built-in limitation or restriction on power levels?

This definitely happens, but note that just because something was put in by WotC for a reason doesn't mean that it was a good reason. In some instances WotC designers have actually come out and said "We put in such and such a limitation because we were worried it would be overpowered otherwise, but in hindsight it turns out we were wrong." Off the top of my head, I can recall specifically one of the writers of Complete Warrior saying this in regards to the Hexblade being underpowered (and it's probably the most powerful of the three base classes in CWar, too!)


Is it that people who design homebrews really just want their designs to be used, thus incentivizing the maximization of "miles per gallon" in the hopes of attracting greater attention and interest?

I think this does tend to happen, and is not entirely a bad thing if kept within reasonable limits. Remember that published base classes, particularly core classes, have several years' worth of metagame analysis and splatbook support built up for them. In some cases homebrew classes need a slight edge from extra incentives like this in order to remain balanced in the face of all the support published classes have. A class might look powerful compared to the Bard class straight out of the PHB (a class generally acknowledge as being pretty middle-of-the-road balancewise) and yet still pale in comparison to a bard tricked out with feats and prestige classes from the Complete series and other WotC splatbooks, even barring stuff like Sublime Chord.

levi
2007-11-13, 03:33 PM
While I think you have hit on some of the reasons things are unbalanced, I don't think you've covered what I belive are the main ones.

One

Firstly, d20 in general and DnD in particular are notoriously difficult to balance. Unlike character points based systems (such as Gurps, BESM, Storyteller, etc.), the complex hybrid level/class/skill/feat/spell & power/equipment based system that DnD has evolved into over the years, there is almost no baseline to figure out what is balanced.

For instance, to balance a class, one must consider if the sum of it's base attack, saves, and special abilities are balanced as a whole as well as if the class is balanced at each level. Then one must consider what happens when multiclassing.

Many things, like Feats and Prestige classes have widely varying ranges of power and basically have the level of power permitted based on thier prerequisites, which almost always end up being easier to fufill than one imagines when some crazed CO build is applied to the challenge.

In almost every aspect of DnD, the number of synegies to consider is huge. While this is of course true in any large system, I belive the complex nature of DnD's ruleset magnifies the problem.

Two

DnD as a whole is considered by many to not be very well balanced to begin with. For example, spell casting is belived by many to break the game at higher levels. As another example, level adjustments are considered to function poorly for balancing high powered races.

This leads to two seperate effects. The fist is that some people homebrew in an attempt to fix whatever imbalances they percive. This can lead to overcompensation or merely stuff that looks unbalanced when compared to baseline DnD. For instance, many projects aimed at creating martial classes often have an implicit or explicit goal of attempting to match the level of caster classes. This leads to them being more powerful than baseline martial classes.

The other effect is that people may use unbalanced portions of the system as a baseline and thus produce stuff that's also unbalanced. For instance, if WotC publishes an overpowered class and a homebrewer uses that as a baseline for his class (for whatever reason), their class will also be overpowered.

The extent of these problems is related to the endlessly debated issue of whether DnD is balanced or not and how. As the canon of published material increases, the problem is inevitable exacerbated. Also, due to various factors, more and more suppliments leads to power creep, which is also an influence.

Three

Some people are fluff people and some people are crunch people. While no one (or almost no one) whos plays DnD is likely to be exclusively of one camp or the other, most have thier strenghts in one and are not as good at the other.

Fluff people have ideas and want to see them in action, but they may not have a firm enough grasp of the cruch to adequately balance thier ideas. (Also, DnD's complexity requires a very firm grasp of it's cruch to balance.)

In general, I think the majority of posters on the homebrew forum are fluff people. Looking at the wide variety of (sometimes outlandish) ideas that appear on the forums daily has given me that impression. They have an idea and apply some DnD rules to it. Unless they have a head for the complex math of DnD statistical analysis, substantive knowledge of existing abilities and the potential synegies whith thier creation, and the time to run extensive playtests, balancing these ideas can be hard. (Especially if they're a fluff person.)

Of course, cruch people also post in the Homebrew forums, but they present thier own issues. Nobody can seem to agree as to what is and isn't balanced in DnD. (You should see the flame wars that break out sometimes.) So the crunch people have thier own system (mathmatical, ad hoc, or otherwise) for deciding what is and isn't balanced. These systems range from pretty good to downright awful, but rarely agree with each other. Thus many projects produced by crunch people look unbalanced to other crunch people.

Crunch people are also more likely to have a goal of correcting a percived imbalance with the system, which can lead to some of the issues discussed above.

Of course, real people fall somewhere in a contium of these two archetypes and thier homebrew can display both sorts of problems. In fact many homebrew projects posted here explicitly ask for help with balancing.

Conclusions

Balancing DnD is hard, especially when nobody can agree on what is or isn't balanced. There are several factors that exaserbate the problem.

From the tone and content of your post, I belive you have a heavy leaning towards being a cruch person. (Not to say you aren't a fluff person, just that your crunch-fu is strong.) This leads you to evaluate homebrew content in the light of your own internal cocepts of DnD balance, which may or may not line up with the creator's own.

Generally, the only way to truely balance something is to do a rigorous formal analysis of it using the scientific methods of game theory. Due to the massive and ever growing size of the DnD ruleset, that's not gonna happen.

Therefore, the only other alternative is massive amounts of playtesting. Note here that by massive, I mean beyond even what a big company like WotC does. Homebrewers can't really manage that either.

The other method is to subject it to the abuses of the Wizards Character Optimization boards. The cats over there can break anything, which proves that everything is overpowered and, thus, balanced. (In a way.)

In general, this is what computer science geeks (like myself) call a "hard problem". Good luck probing it's depths and don't forget your flame retardant undergarments.

lord of pixies
2007-11-29, 08:35 PM
2, I think I would consider a bit differently. Certainly it's awesome to get feedback here, and I can absolutely see the value in that. But wouldn't it be better to self-limit as much as possible to help get the concept there, rather than starting at an extreme?

HH

lets face it, im a kid, ive only played 4 sesions and i have no clue wahts balanced so i trust the people here to help me.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-30, 01:36 AM
Homebrewed material is only as good as the designer and the work he puts into it. Same goes for published material. All the designers are different. Making overgeneralizations as to the comparative quality of official vs homebrew is a pointless endeavor at best.

Good work from good designers is usually well-balanced against whatever paradigm for balance that designer has set. Whether it's official or homebrew is utterly irrelevant.

The tricky bit is that there are a LOT more bad designers putting out homebrew material than there are good designers putting out homebrew material. You just need to identify the works that don't suck horribly and fit with the kind of game you want to play. The same goes for published material. Easy.

belboz
2007-11-30, 03:48 AM
I think that's another good test, although I'd narrow it to say, "Will everyone who wants to play this general archetype (arcane, divine, warrior, rogue) want to play this?"

HH

I disagree with the latter part of that. There's a general...well, not quite a general consensus, but a *very* commonly held opinion, that the core game does not have balance between the archetypes--the core divine classes are rather more powerful than the core fighter classes, for example. If the alternative is a core fighter/paladin/ranger class, almost everyone who wants to play a warrior archetype will indeed want to play Fax's "how-it-should-be fighter", for example, since most people would like to be contributing members of their party all the way up to level 20. But I don't think that makes it unbalanced; it just brings its balance level more closely in line with, say, core divine classes.

And that's really something that needs to be noted--the published rule system is *not* balanced, at least at higher levels--and this isn't because of a few problematic feats or rules. Classes with serious battlefield control abilities are just plain more powerful at higher levels (where battlefield control becomes a huge issue as opponents get more mobile and more dangerous at a distance) are just plain better than hit-it-until-it-falls-down classes.

Whether this means fighters should be buffed, or clerics should be nerfed, is a separate issue, of course. Personally, I think that answer varies a lot with play style. If you like the current CR system, and think that "EL-appropriate encounters" are really EL-appropriate (for maximum level of excitement and fun), the answer is probably "a little of both". If you think that they're too easy, you should nerf the more powerful classes; if you think they're too hard, you should buff up the weaker ones. I don't think there's an objective answer to this. Some groups have a more optimized play style or more love of risk, and need to have encounters made harder for them to enjoy them; some other groups either aren't that good at or aren't that interested in optimization, and they'll probably have more fun if encounters aren't quite as threatening.

And the issue of the appropriate power levels for entirely homebrewed classes is effectively the same issue. Should they be balanced against core fighters, against core clerics, or somewhere in between? It really depends on whether you find the game too hard or too easy.

Of course, some homebrewed classes might blow *all* core classes out of the water. Classes like that (in addition to only being fair if everyone in the group gets one) are really appropriate only for a very limited audience--those who find the game as written much, much too challenging for their ideal fun level. But it should be noted that even that is a legitimate attitude, though it may not be most people's.

And of course, all of this can be further complicated by house-rule decisions to globally lower or raise CRs. If you're happy with the game's current level of challenge, but want it to be more "superhero-y", then you should use ultra-high-powered classes/items/etc and just shave some substantial number off of the CR of every potential opponent. That's very much not my preferred style of play, but I think it's a legitimate one too. You can do the opposite, too, if you want more of a "little people in the big scary world" feel to things.