PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Ways in which perceptions of Homebrew differ from reality



MrStabby
2023-01-22, 09:41 PM
Some homebrew is overpowered. Some is underpowered. Most tables look at homebrew and can quickly get a good grasp of its probable power, but there are some features that sometimes seem to slip through.

A few things I have seen that people misjudge (including myself from time to time) and within the context of 5e.

1) Spell selection. For casting classes, obviously. People look at a class and see its a full caster or a half caster and mentally block out a certain typical amount of power from that. If it casts level nine spells at level 17 then this has a certain equivalent power - be the spell Weird or be it Wish. The gulf between the power of spells within a given spell level in 5e is enormous. Witch bolt and shield will really add a different amount to a class. It isn't that people don't look at the availble spells when evaluating a class but rather I feel their underweight them. A half caster with the best spells is going to be more impressive than a full caster with bad spells on the class list.

2) Spells known/prepared. How many different things you can do matters but people tend to evaluate each in isolation and give less weight to the bigger picture of sometimes not having the right tool ready.

3) The span of spells - sometimes blasting things is the right option. Sometimes save or suck, and sometimes you need a buff spell or at least something that won't worry about magic resistance. Having the same quality of spell but spread out over different functions is usually a bit more powerful, but this is a benefit that often seem to slip through evauation. This covers also a good balance of concentration/non-concentration spells and spells with different casting times.

4) Casting stat. Some stats are better than others, and the same class with a casting stat that aligns with an otherwise strong stat in the game is likely to be better than one that doesn't

5) Hit Points. Its a small point, but I think that people often don't give enough weight to HP and HD size. At level 10, going from a d6 to a d8 would give about 16 more HP over the day (assuming using half HD for HP recovery).

6) Abilities that can be used a smal number of times per day. I have seen people do a couple of quick checks - what's the max power of the class in queston in an encounter and can it put other classes in the shade? And, what's the at-will power of the class it can keep up all day. Abilities that are twice a day or once per short rest seem to get a bit of a cursory glance - if it isn't that powerful that it impacts peak power then it has a small effect and if its only being used a couple of times per day its as if it doesn't happen at all.

7) Abilities that are worse versions of other abilities. If another class has an ability but an ability in question is strictly weaker, it often gets labled as a bad ability, even though the cumulative effect of this with other class abilities might be large. If a class isn't pushing the envelope in one dimension or another its deemed safe - there seems to be a lot of tollerance for very powerful generalists.

8) The match-up between defensive abilities and likely strong or weak stats. Immunity to charm or fear is of greater marginal benefit to a Str based class likely to dump wisdom than it is to a Wisdom based class likely to dump strength.

9) Starting skills - if you were to give a homebrew class an extra skill at creation (like the ranger) it would likely not even be noticed by many.

10) Movement - whilst this is a bit more applicable to homebrew races than classes, a boost to movement speed seems to be undervalued in my experience.

11) Growing abilities - some that are obviously big like spellcasting or sneak attack get noticed. The gradual increase in power of things like bardic inspiration/song of rest or monk MA dice on the other hand just seems to slip through peoples minds when evaluating a class. Especially if the uptick is quite a bit later - a 3rd level ability that gets a boost at levels 11, 14, 17 and 20 that ends up powerful might totaly slip by people.

12) Healing. Unless its a big deal, anything that restored HP seems to get less attention - its less flashy and doesn't end encounters. Things like second wind might not be powerful abilities, but when people evaluate a class it can sometimes almost seem that abilities like this don't exist (and another example of both something that grows and something that is a few times per day).

13) Ritual Casting. When reading a proposed class, many reviewers just seem to skim over this. In a party with a ritual caster already it may not add a lot of power, but if there isn't one then its a big deal.

14) Anything that falls below a certain threshold of being too situational will often seem to not exist at all - especially defensive abilities. The afforementioned immunity to fear and charm or resistance to a (non BPS) damage type seems to be ignored. Something like the paladin's extra divine smite damage to fiends and undead as an offensive ability will gain a bit more attention.

15) Being MAD - if there is an ability (like some artificers,hexblade) to make a class SAD then those reviewing will often (rightly) jump on it as a powerful ability. If you do the opposite, people seem much less sensative to it as a weakness (say imagine a caster with some abilities keying of wisdom and some off charisma). This is a bit different for subclasses to existing classes where an expectation is already set.

16) Out of combat abiities. Sells like fabricate or expertise with tools. It might come up... it might not. Maybe this is covered under the niche abilities?

17) Alignment (or otherwise) of abilities common between classes. Look at an ability like temp HP on a hit. Fiend warlock gets it, long death monk gets it - the warlock is likely doing more damage and getting better value out of it becuse it gets so many offensive spells/boosts. Or look at a spell like spirit guardians - geat on a cleric that comes with armour and shield proficiencies, less good on a bard without them and who can't afford to stand in melee. If an ability is the same as another ability I tend to find it gets rated the same as that other ability.



This isn't intended to be advocating for people to push more powerful homebrew or to sneak things by people, and I am not even trying to say that this will be universally applicable. Just in my experience, these are the things that people don't pay a lot of attention to. I imagine there are a lot more.

Yakk
2023-01-23, 01:53 PM
Some homebrew is overpowered. Some is underpowered. Most tables look at homebrew and can quickly get a good grasp of its probable power, but there are some features that sometimes seem to slip through.

A few things I have seen that people misjudge (including myself from time to time) and within the context of 5e.

1) Spell selection. For casting classes, obviously. People look at a class and see its a full caster or a half caster and mentally block out a certain typical amount of power from that. If it casts level nine spells at level 17 then this has a certain equivalent power - be the spell Weird or be it Wish. The gulf between the power of spells within a given spell level in 5e is enormous. Witch bolt and shield will really add a different amount to a class. It isn't that people don't look at the availble spells when evaluating a class but rather I feel their underweight them. A half caster with the best spells is going to be more impressive than a full caster with bad spells on the class list.

No, this is valid. If you make a full caster with bad spells, that is a design problem in the class. Once that design problem is fixed, the balance problem reemerges.

If you have a balance problem hidden by a design problem, then your class still needs to be reworked.


2) Spells known/prepared. How many different things you can do matters but people tend to evaluate each in isolation and give less weight to the bigger picture of sometimes not having the right tool ready.
The benefit of preparing spells is non-zero but not that huge. Most players in practice have a standard layout they at most tweak.

Having access to the full list during downtime, or being able to not spend a slot on a useful utility spell (like remove curse) that you might have 24 hours notice for, is the biggest impact. Swapping your spells based on a known foe is, in my experience, not that big.



3) The span of spells - sometimes blasting things is the right option. Sometimes save or suck, and sometimes you need a buff spell or at least something that won't worry about magic resistance. Having the same quality of spell but spread out over different functions is usually a bit more powerful, but this is a benefit that often seem to slip through evauation. This covers also a good balance of concentration/non-concentration spells and spells with different casting times.

Sure. But unless highlighted as a specific feature, this kind of thing can be subject to creep.

Like, I make a caster with no concentration spells. Unless I somehow make it explicit that no concentration spells are allowed by this class, you can bet dollars to donuts that a later tweak may add them. And as it isn't obvious they shouldn't be allowed, it shows up.

So if your class balance is resting on "no concentration spells" or "all concentration spells" or "no blasting", the person making the class should be explicit about it.

I mean, take a look at the bard. It has very few blasting spells -- but honestly, it only takes a few to turn it into a full blaster.


4) Casting stat. Some stats are better than others, and the same class with a casting stat that aligns with an otherwise strong stat in the game is likely to be better than one that doesn't
The only casting stat that is noticably bad is int.


5) Hit Points. Its a small point, but I think that people often don't give enough weight to HP and HD size. At level 10, going from a d6 to a d8 would give about 16 more HP over the day (assuming using half HD for HP recovery).
With 14 con, which most people doing optimization aim for, d6 HD means 62 HP, while d8 means 73 HP. You can expend HD on short rests; this only matters if (a) you lack magical healing, and (b) you have a multi-short-rest day, and (c) you take damage relatively uniformly over the day.

So 11 HP, plus 5 HP sustained extra HP which you may or may not use.

HD in 5e is more of a signifier anyhow. d6 means wizard or equivalent, d10 means front line armored tank, and d12 is reserved for barbarian.


6) Abilities that can be used a smal number of times per day. I have seen people do a couple of quick checks - what's the max power of the class in queston in an encounter and can it put other classes in the shade? And, what's the at-will power of the class it can keep up all day. Abilities that are twice a day or once per short rest seem to get a bit of a cursory glance - if it isn't that powerful that it impacts peak power then it has a small effect and if its only being used a couple of times per day its as if it doesn't happen at all.
On the other hand, per-short-rest get folded into per-encounter.

Per day abilities are used in the hardest "boss" fight. 2 per day makes the 2nd use marginally less useful. So discounting them sort of makes sense.

Eventually per day becomes per encounter. People often treat barbarian rages as a per encounter ability, for example.


7) Abilities that are worse versions of other abilities. If another class has an ability but an ability in question is strictly weaker, it often gets labled as a bad ability, even though the cumulative effect of this with other class abilities might be large. If a class isn't pushing the envelope in one dimension or another its deemed safe - there seems to be a lot of tollerance for very powerful generalists.
If it has a significant action cost, then often this is correct. Most homebrew screw up action costs in my experience.

8) The match-up between defensive abilities and likely strong or weak stats. Immunity to charm or fear is of greater marginal benefit to a Str based class likely to dump wisdom than it is to a Wisdom based class likely to dump strength.
Sure. Again, this is marginal in my experience.

Immunity abilities are rare and overvalued as it stands. Either they don't come up because the DM doesn't pick foes who impose it, or it comes up a bunch and the DM stops picking foes who impose it.

I have yet to see in any game a PC with immunity to a specific status effect get constantly spammed with anti-that-specific-ability powers.

9) Starting skills - if you were to give a homebrew class an extra skill at creation (like the ranger) it would likely not even be noticed by many.
I randomly made a PC the other day and ended up with 7 trained skills 2 trained tools and 3 languages.

The 7th trained skill was me looking for something to pick up.

Extra skills aren't that important.


10) Movement - whilst this is a bit more applicable to homebrew races than classes, a boost to movement speed seems to be undervalued in my experience.
I agree here. With the one note that ranged attack abilities are undervalued, and ranged attack abilities also make movement matter much less.

Melee sucks compared to range in 5e, and melee really needs movement. Ranged weapons pay like 1-2 points of damage in exchange for 100'+ of range.


11) Growing abilities - some that are obviously big like spellcasting or sneak attack get noticed. The gradual increase in power of things like bardic inspiration/song of rest or monk MA dice on the other hand just seems to slip through peoples minds when evaluating a class. Especially if the uptick is quite a bit later - a 3rd level ability that gets a boost at levels 11, 14, 17 and 20 that ends up powerful might totaly slip by people.

More than 90% of games end before level 10. So yes, back 10 abilities are undervalued, and they should be. Marginal boosts in the back 10 are more than a bit of a joke.

Song of Rest is a joke of an ability.

Monk MA dice scaling means a tiny damage in T3/4. It is tiny, not enough, and the lack of monk's T3/4 baseline damage boost is one of the reasons why the class is lackluster back there. Those extra MA dice are a decreasing percentage boost on an ability that need smore.

Bardic Inspiration size growth isn't bad. But if you just take the average boost you misvalue it. A good BI is one that nearly certainly turns a failure into a success.

If each of missing by 1 to 10 is equally likely, and you'll use it if it has a 50%+ chance of turning a failure into a success, then...

d6 is used on 40% of failures.
d8 is used on 50% of failures.
d10 is used on 60% of failures.
d12 is used on 70% of failures.

in each case, when it is used it saves the day 75% of the time.

Despite d12 being 6.5 average vs 3.5 average (85% bigger) and twice the max, it is only used 75% more often with the same average effect.


12) Healing. Unless its a big deal, anything that restored HP seems to get less attention - its less flashy and doesn't end encounters. Things like second wind might not be powerful abilities, but when people evaluate a class it can sometimes almost seem that abilities like this don't exist (and another example of both something that grows and something that is a few times per day).
If healing is very powerful, the game is boring. You get grindy encounters that take forever.

Also, 5e baseline design is that healing isn't enough to keep up with damage. Unless you are approaching a specialized cleric at healing, your healing will be slow.


13) Ritual Casting. When reading a proposed class, many reviewers just seem to skim over this. In a party with a ritual caster already it may not add a lot of power, but if there isn't one then its a big deal.
It is also not as good as a feat.


14) Anything that falls below a certain threshold of being too situational will often seem to not exist at all - especially defensive abilities. The afforementioned immunity to fear and charm or resistance to a (non BPS) damage type seems to be ignored. Something like the paladin's extra divine smite damage to fiends and undead as an offensive ability will gain a bit more attention.
Yes, it should be. As noted above, DMs may not pick it, and if they pick it a lot they (in practice) end up stop picking it a lot.

Defensive abilities are those you don't get to pick if you use. If they shut down part of the game, then the DM adapts the game in practice.

Offensive abilities that are based on foe creature type are similar, but a bit less likely to be adapted around in my experience.


15) Being MAD - if there is an ability (like some artificers,hexblade) to make a class SAD then those reviewing will often (rightly) jump on it as a powerful ability. If you do the opposite, people seem much less sensative to it as a weakness (say imagine a caster with some abilities keying of wisdom and some off charisma). This is a bit different for subclasses to existing classes where an expectation is already set.
I almost never see a MAD homebrew.

Often they jump through hoops to make them SAD.

And often they get ironed out of the design by other people's suggestions. Which makes me sad.

But 5e really rewards your main "attack" stat being maximized, which in turn leaves little room to boost other stuff.

16) Out of combat abiities. Sells like fabricate or expertise with tools. It might come up... it might not. Maybe this is covered under the niche abilities?
Sure. But the game isn't a simulation. Often these abilities, if not available, an alternative magically appears.


17) Alignment (or otherwise) of abilities common between classes. Look at an ability like temp HP on a hit. Fiend warlock gets it, long death monk gets it - the warlock is likely doing more damage and getting better value out of it becuse it gets so many offensive spells/boosts. Or look at a spell like spirit guardians - geat on a cleric that comes with armour and shield proficiencies, less good on a bard without them and who can't afford to stand in melee. If an ability is the same as another ability I tend to find it gets rated the same as that other ability.
I don't trust your ability to understand the game balance.

Heavy armor just means you can dump dex instead of strength, and gives you at best +1 AC.

Half plate and 14 dex has 17 AC; full plate and 15 strength is 18 AC. And the bard has +2 dex over the cleric, giving it higher initiative, which means it has more turns per combat (0.1 on average).

Similarly, a fiend warlock who isn't in melee isn't going to take as much damage, meaning the temp HP has less value. The long death monk will be in melee and have higher AC, both of which boost the value of temp HP.

In T1/T2, Monk and Warlock aren't that far off on damage. Monk's big problem is MAD, but Warlock has the issue of having poor feat selection.

So the Monk gets 20 dex/wis around the end of T2, the Warlock gets 20 cha early/mid T2.

In short, I'd be careful about synergy assumptions.