3.5 homebrew, why?

[Jarian]

Noone with a bit of creativity can tell me they already went through every enjoyable character they can come up with using only officially published material.

However, as a freelance writer and creative lead for several stage productions, I can tell you that WotC support for a vast number of concepts is laughably small, and often equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot, no matter how well you optimize within that particular concept.

I like to think of myself as a highly creative person. Others may disagree. I've played 3.5 since 2003. At this point, the well of enjoyable characters for me within officially published material is running a little dry.

I don't think you intended your statement as an insult, but be a little less cavalier with sweeping judgment in the future, hrm?

[bobthe6th]

as another reason not listed before, I am really lacking a D&D group at the mo. PbP is not a good way to get my fix, so I have been compulsively making and reading home brew. I shore up weak archetypes(see my shield, razor, and all 4 versions of the blaster), make something unique(see the telikenetisist, make that with current rules), and at the same time kill the shakes of D&D withdral.

[ThiagoMartell]

What about a Fighter, Truenamer, or Monk fix? Or a Tier 3 Wizard fix?

I'm cool with that. Like I said, don't fix what ain't broke, but those are definitely broken.

[bobthe6th]

yeah, and then you get the tomes... and you see that angry hombrew, and you see fixing what is now thought to be broke...

[moritheil]

Wanna test my homebrews in the actual game.

This. Though in my case, I'll only bring them up to players if I am the DM; I won't ask a DM to put up with my homebrew.

(Also, if I'm DMming in my homebrew world, the stuff is part of the setting, so it would arguably be more work to separate it out.)

[ThiagoMartell]

yeah, and then you get the tomes... and you see that angry hombrew, and you see fixing what is now thought to be broke...

The Tomes are the worst homebrew out there.

[Jarian]

The Tomes are the worst homebrew out there.

The idea behind the Tome works is sound. Give all the classes the ability to contribute meaningfully with fun options.

The execution is just terrible. They took "meaningfully contribute" to mean give everything insta-kills, and the ability to cut through reality with a sword. Literally.

[ThiagoMartell]

The idea behind the Tome works is sound. Give all the classes the ability to contribute meaningfully with fun options.

That's also the idea behind the PHB classes. Or 4e. 4e even got it right, something the Tomes never did.
Just because someone had a good idea, it doesn't mean the end results are going to be good. Being able to milk something actually good from an idea is what makes someone a good writer.
Sometimes you have a good idea, you manage to do exactly what you wanted... and it still fails. Again, 4e. A sound system that failed to appeal to most of it's target market.

[Jarian]

Was there a point to quoting half the post that was agreeing with you and turning it into a disagreement?

I usually don't quibble over little things like picking apart posts, but it seems like you want to disagree with everyone who isn't mirroring your posts in this thread.

[ThiagoMartell]

Was there a point to quoting half the post that was agreeing with you and turning it into a disagreement?

I usually don't quibble over little things like picking apart posts, but it seems like you want to disagree with everyone who isn't mirroring your posts in this thread.

I wasn't disagreeing
Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I just meant the Tomes are not the only example of good idea, bad exectution.

[Jarian]

I just meant the Tomes are not the only example of good idea, bad exectution.

Ah. That makes... a lot more sense. I was sitting here going "why is he disagreeing with me on that? There's like four people on the whole internet that like the Tomes!"

[kardar233]

Ah. That makes... a lot more sense. I was sitting here going "why is he disagreeing with me on that? There's like four people on the whole internet that like the Tomes!"

Do you mean the Frank & K tomes? Not up on user-side 3.5 creations.

[ericgrau]

I love homebrew for the new and creative options it gives.

But in practice I despise complicated homebrew classes. They're way too big to know whether or not they fit well in games, and usually that means they're way too strong or too weak. I prefer smaller chunks like homebrew feats or spells. Or variant classes or other such classes that apply small changes to existing ones (small relative to a complete rewrite, anyway). That way if it's a little OP or UP you can continue to play with it anyway and it won't ruin the entire campaign.

Small "fixes" are similar to variants and thus tolerable, large "fixes" not so much. I don't think it's a valid argument to assume people will break class X and therefore anything goes when making other classes or nerfing that one. It's better to assume players will play nice, and a more common situation too. Assuming otherwise and responding accordingly means you're intentionally breaking the system whether the players were going to or not.

[Jarian]

Do you mean the Frank & K tomes? Not up on user-side 3.5 creations.

Yes. Tome of Battle is more or less universally beloved (more or less because some people hate psionics too, and their reasonings are usually the same in principle), and Tome of Magic Binders is pretty cool too.

Frank & K Tomes are Rocket Tag turned up to 12, which never ends well.

[Eurus]

I think the Tomes are pretty much unusable for practical play, but interesting as a thought exercise and a benchmark to compare other homebrew to.

People usually create homebrew for a few reasons; because they have fun doing so, or because they want to fill a specific niche that can't easily be filled by existing 3.5 material. People usually request homebrew because they saw something that looks nifty and want to see how it works out in practice.

Saying that homebrew is frequently on the extremes of the power spectrum is pointless, because the fact is that most WotC material already is on the extremes of the power spectrum -- see Wizard vs. Fighter, or Polymorph Any Object vs., I dunno, Antipathy.

It is, however, a valid point that homebrew takes time and effort to evaluate, particularly if a dozen people app for a game that only is taking four players. DMs are generally clear about their stance on homebrew right off the bat, and most people certainly won't think less of one for making a "no homebrew" stance clear.

[Jarian]

and most people certainly won't think less of one for making a "no homebrew" stance clear.

Caveat: I most definitely think less of those that blanket ban homebrew if they claim that it's all overpowered/drivel/whatever. Not wanting to review it for your game is one thing, but not even making an effort to understand it is something else entirely.

[ThiagoMartell]

Saying that homebrew is frequently on the extremes of the power spectrum is pointless, because the fact is that most WotC material already is on the extremes of the power spectrum -- see Wizard vs. Fighter, or Polymorph Any Object vs., I dunno, Antipathy.

Sorry, not only do I disagree with you, I find your logic unsound.
You say most material is on extreme ends of the power spectrum and back your claim with well known examples. That is far from most.
WotC material is all over the place, but most of it falls in the same balance point (tier 4, if you will). JaronK does not have all WotC classes in his tier system, but count how many there are on tier 1, how many there are on tier 6... and then how many there are on tier 4. You'll be surprised. Most of the other classes are usually considered to be around tier 3-4 as well.

[Dienekes]

I'm cool with that. Like I said, don't fix what ain't broke, but those are definitely broken.

Alright, I can understand this. It was the earlier statement of don't try to homebrew just because you think you can do it better that I disagree with. Largely because I have homebrewed monk and fighter fixes because I thought I could do better. I think I succeeded to, but not nearly as well as some of these other brewers. I'm basically a complete novice at brewing.

[Eurus]

Sorry, not only do I disagree with you, I find your logic unsound.
You say most material is on extreme ends of the power spectrum and back your claim with well known examples. That is far from most.
WotC material is all over the place, but most of it falls in the same balance point (tier 4, if you will). JaronK does not have all WotC classes in his tier system, but count how many there are on tier 1, how many there are on tier 6... and then how many there are on tier 4. You'll be surprised. Most of the other classes are usually considered to be around tier 3-4 as well.

Well, I would argue that a significant portion of casting classes -- Psion/Wilder/Erudite, Sorc/Wiz, Cleric/Archivist/Favored Soul, Druid, Artificer -- fall at least in tier 2, which is generally considered to be the "does almost anything, albeit not all at once" level. And spellcasters will usually make up a reasonable percentage of any party.

Conversely, tier 5 is generally considered to have about as many classes as tier 4 does, and it's considered to be the "only does one thing and not even that great" level, which I would say lands it on the lower extreme.

This is going only by tier lists and base classes, obviously, which is an incomplete picture. The power discrepancy is everywhere. Look at the feats in the Player's Handbook -- there are a small handful that are generally considered decent, with the majority being utter dross. Prestige Classes equally fall into the trap of either being unabashedly better than any other options, or straightforwardly worse than the base class they're meant to advance.

[ThiagoMartell]

Well, I would argue that a significant portion of casting classes -- Psion/Wilder/Erudite, Sorc/Wiz, Cleric/Archivist/Favored Soul, Druid, Artificer -- fall at least in tier 2, which is generally considered to be the "does almost anything, albeit not all at once" level. And spellcasters will usually make up a reasonable percentage of any party.

You have basically listed all of the tier 1 and 2 classes. Add the Binder, trade the Wilder for the Ardent, and you have what's basically considered tiers 1 and 2. That's... eleven classes. Someone made a list of all 3.5 base classes... it had over 400 classes.

Conversely, tier 5 is generally considered to have about as many classes as tier 4 does, and it's considered to be the "only does one thing and not even that great" level, which I would say lands it on the lower extreme.

Tier 5 is the most hotly debated tier there is. Most of the classes in tier 5 could just as likely be in tier 4 (like the Paladin) or are just a single ACF or feat away from it (Swashbuckler, Fighter).
The intended balance point of 3.5 pretty obviously fits in tier 4. Tier 5 is perfectly acceptable in such an environment. Far from low end of power.

This is going only by tier lists and base classes, obviously, which is an incomplete picture.

Agree completely, but there is more data on that, so it's better debate material.

The power discrepancy is everywhere. Look at the feats in the Player's Handbook -- there are a small handful that are generally considered decent, with the majority being utter dross. Prestige Classes equally fall into the trap of either being unabashedly better than any other options, or straightforwardly worse than the base class they're meant to advance.

This is again... wrong.
There a few (very few, as you mention yourself) very good feats. There are a few very bad feats. Most of the feats in-between are acceptable and usable. If you're optimizing you will of course take all of the best feats, but there are plenty of decent feats all around. Most of the feats in the Completes and PHB2 are quite decent.
Not everything is Knowledge Devotion or Power Attack, but not everything is Toughness and Lightning Reflexes as well.
About prestige classes, check out the Iron Chef challenges. You'll see most of the underrated prestige classes are actually not that bad.

[Jarian]

You have basically listed all of the tier 1 and 2 classes. Add the Binder, trade the Wilder for the Ardent, and you have what's basically considered tiers 1 and 2. That's... eleven classes. Someone made a list of all 3.5 base classes... it had over 400 classes.

80% of which are third-party, so you really can't count those.

*goes back to munching popcorn*

[ThiagoMartell]

80% of which are third-party, so you really can't count those.

*goes back to munching popcorn*

11 in 100 is still not "most".

[ryu]

You mathed wrong. 80% percent of 400 is 320. That would be 11 in 80. Now count the number that are supposed to make up the low half.

[ThiagoMartell]

You mathed wrong. 80% percent of 400 is 320. That would be 11 in 80. Now count the number that are supposed to make up the low half.

Math nitpicking aside, the post has "more than 400" classes and Jarian probably used 80% as a random number.
26 in 80 is still not most anyway.

[ryu]

I'm not supporting either side. I just get perturbed by math issues. It was perfectly irrelevant to me until the urge to nitpick came up.

[Eurus]

To start with, I'll admit that my claim of "most" might have been hasty. I can't honestly claim to have classified the many options in 3.5 extensively enough to make that sort of sweeping claim.

However, with apologies, I'd like to change angles here a bit. My intended goal was not to argue that 50%+ of WotC material is imbalanced, but rather that homebrew should not be dismissed as inherently unreasonable on the grounds of extreme power levels when WotC material easily runs the full range as well.

There is certainly imbalanced material in both categories, in a not-insignificant amount. By contrast, I have also seen popular homebrews subjected to more intense scrutiny and revision than some official material probably got.

A necessary evil of 3.5 is the need for any DM to review potential imbalances even with core material, and for players to intentionally aim for similar power levels -- most people can give their own anecdotes about the hazards of a party with a gap of two or more tiers between PCs. Homebrew is essentially just an expansion of this gentleman's agreement on which 3.5 is founded. Reasonable players will try to avoid that which is blatantly imbalanced.

[ThiagoMartell]

To start with, I'll admit that my claim of "most" might have been hasty. I can't honestly claim to have classified the many options in 3.5 extensively enough to make that sort of sweeping claim.

However, with apologies, I'd like to change angles here a bit. My intended goal was not to argue that 50%+ of WotC material is imbalanced, but rather that homebrew should not be dismissed as inherently unreasonable on the grounds of extreme power levels when WotC material easily runs the full range as well.

Now that I can agree with... but you can't blame a DM who doesn't want to read through homebrew just to see if it's balanced, same as you can't blame a DM who doesn't want to read through Magic of Incarnum.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Math nitpicking aside, the post has "more than 400" classes and Jarian probably used 80% as a random number.
26 in 80 is still not most anyway.

JaronK didn't put all the classes on the tier list. There's a lot less than 80 on there.

[ThiagoMartell]

JaronK didn't put all the classes on the tier list. There's a lot less than 80 on there.

OK, once you get a unified table with all the classes in it we can continue the discussion then. I'll be waiting.

[Jarian]

OK, once you get a unified table with all the classes in it we can continue the discussion then. I'll be waiting.

Working on it already. I assume we're discounting 3rd party and NPC classes?