Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 116 of 116
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarian View Post
    Working on it already. I assume we're discounting 3rd party and NPC classes?
    JaronK does not discount NPC classes. Actually, he doesn't even discount 3rd party, since the Rokugan Ninja is on his list.

    Basically, I don't know.

    EDIT: This should be in a different thread, I believe.
    Last edited by ThiagoMartell; 2012-06-16 at 09:42 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    1. The DMG encourages homebrew (along with every other D&D book ever published), so it is in no way out of line.
    2. The official rules are completely broken (house rules are a form of homebrew), so fixes are in order (which could include alternate class variants.)
    3. Not every concept you can imagine is in a book.
    4. Even if a concept is in the books, it might have bland mechanics, and you can improve on it.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    If Orcus was a nesting doll, that would certainly make the whole thing work smoother. When you cast a level 1 summoning spell, you summon the little Orcus from the middle, but when you cast Gate, you get the really big Orcus that holds all the small Orcuses.

    Extended Signature

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by 137ben View Post
    2. The official rules are completely broken (house rules are a form of homebrew), so fixes are in order (which could include alternate class variants.)
    This pisses me off every time.
    They are not completely broken. If they were, no one would be able to play the game.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kazyan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    To add to the discussion, one should look at the growing Homebrew Tier Compendium project to see how spread-out the homebrew power levels actually are. There are no Tier 6s or Tier 1s at the time of writing.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    To add to the discussion, one should look at the growing Homebrew Tier Compendium project to see how spread-out the homebrew power levels actually are. There are no Tier 6s or Tier 1s at the time of writing.
    That's funny, I saw a thread in the homebrew forums the other day specifically about tier 6 classes.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Eldest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Someplace Hot
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    That particular thread, if we're thinking of the same thing, was made for having those classes combined to form higher tier classes, to be highly modular.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Jarian's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Crazytown
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    EDIT: This should be in a different thread, I believe.
    Since it's directly related to the question of printed vs. homebrew balance in general, I think it can stay.

    The following is all 3.5 base classes, to the best of my knowledge, followed by my approximated tier for that class. I could be off on some, so don't take it as word of god or anything.

    Spoiler
    Show
    {table=head]Class Name|Source|Approximated Tier
    Archivist|HoH|Tier 1
    Ardent|CPsi|Tier 2
    Artificer|ECS|Tier 1
    Bard|Core|Tier 3
    Beguiler|PHB2|Tier 3
    Binder|ToM|Tier 3 (tier 2 w/ online vestiges)
    Cleric|Core|Tier 1
    Crusader|ToB|Tier 3
    Divine Mind|CPsi|Tier 5
    Dragon Shaman|PHB2|Tier 4/5
    Dragonfire Adept|DMagic|Tier 3
    Dread Necromancer|HoH|Tier 3
    Druid|Core|Tier 1
    Duskblade|PHB2|Tier 3/4
    Erudite|PSi|Tier 1
    Factotum|Dscape|Tier 3
    Favored Soul|CDiv|Tier 2
    Fighter|Core|Tier 5
    Healer|MiniHB|Tier 4/5 (2 with Gate)
    Hexblade|CWar|Tier 4/5
    Incarnate|MoI|Tier 3
    Knight|PHB2|Tier 5
    Lurk|CPsi|Tier 4
    Marshal|MiniHB|Tier 4/5
    Monk|Core|Tier 5
    Mystic|DCS|Tier 2
    Ninja|Cadv|Tier 5
    Noble|DCS|Tier 4
    Paladin|Core|Tier 5
    Psion|XPH|Tier 2
    Psychic Warrior|XPH|Tier 3
    Ranger|Core|Tier 5
    Rogue|Core|Tier 4
    Samurai(OA|OA|Tier 5
    Samurai (CW)|CWar|Tier 5
    Scout|Cadv|Tier 4
    Shaman|OA|(Unknown)
    Shadowcaster|ToM|Varies by level, 3-5
    Shugenja|CDiv|Tier 2
    Sohei|OA|Tier 4
    Sorcerer|Core|Tier 2
    Soulborn|MoI|Tier 5
    Soulknife|XPH|Tier 5
    Spellthief|CAdv|Tier 4/5
    Spirit Shaman|CDiv|Tier 2
    Swashbuckler|CWar|Tier 5
    Swordsage|ToB|Tier 3
    Totemist|MoI|Tier 3
    Truenamer|ToM|Tier 6/special, T2 w/ Conjunctive Gate
    Warblade|ToB|Tier 3
    Warlock|CArc|Tier 4
    Warmage|CArc|Tier 3
    Wilder|XPH|Tier 3
    Wizard|Core|Tier 1
    Wu Jen|CArc|Tier 2[/table]


    The list does not include NPC classes, nor class variants for the same class, such as those found in UA (Cloistered Cleric, etc.)

    Dragon Magazine content is currently not included, but feel free to add those if you have a list.
    Last edited by Jarian; 2012-06-16 at 11:25 PM.
    Avatar by the illustrious Derjuin.
    Homebrewer's Signature
    If you use any of my homebrew, or even if you just have a strong opinion on it, please let me know. Feedback is always useful.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Lightbringer Adison, Swordmage priestess of Pelor, by the very talented Darwin.

    Bunny!Adison by Alarra!

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morph Bark's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Freljord

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    To add to the discussion, one should look at the growing Homebrew Tier Compendium project to see how spread-out the homebrew power levels actually are. There are no Tier 6s or Tier 1s at the time of writing.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    That's funny, I saw a thread in the homebrew forums the other day specifically about tier 6 classes.
    It should be noted that as of yet, the Homebrew Tier Compendium is very young and thus only includes a handful of classes. Priority also tends to be given to classes closer to Tier 3-4, as those are most likely to see play in general.

    It should also be noted that quite a number of the classes in the Tier 6 classes thread you reference are actually Tier 5, even if low on it, but it's not like that matters much when you're playing at that level of op.
    Strawberries = awesome avatarist.
    Current Projects:
    EMPIRE! -- A Community World-Building Game full of role-playing and strategy
    Analyzing RPG Systems
    Spoiler
    Show
    Campaign setting! Homebrew Tier Compendium! NPCs!
    FanFiction.net | DeviantART | Homebrewer's Signature

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    For me, Homebrew is great because it opens up the possibility of making concepts that are non-viable viable. I also enjoy tinkering with mechanics and abilities, so making things is fun for me(though I haven't really put out a whole lot recently, most of my work more recently has been on refining the core chasis, and a lot of that type of thing isn't even worth really posting on the forums because of the massive adaptation required to use it).

    But I wouldn't ask another DM to run my stuff unless he explicitly says homebrew is okay. Too often it feels like a blatant power grab when you say "Please use this homebrew option I made!" even if it's something weaker than what's already published. I have a few DM's IRL that trust me and will run what I give them, and have done on demand things for other group members before... but in a online game with a DM I've never met? No, I would never be so presumptuous as to say "Hey, let me run with this Soulknife fix I want to test" unless the game was started on the basis of testing homebrew (and honestly I doubt the effectiveness of such a game due to the lack of a control. If you have 4 different people using 8 different homebrew options, how do you effectively playtest, or judge what's going wrong?).
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  10. - Top - End - #100
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ernir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    No love for the Eidolon (and that-other-weird-Ghostwalk-class), Jarian?

    Plz did something similar a bit back. Here it is, if you want to compare notes.
    Last edited by Ernir; 2012-06-16 at 11:43 PM.
    Halfling healer avatar by Akrim.elf.

    My sarcasm is never blue.

    Personal stuff: The Diablo 2 game (DMing), BBCode syntax highlighter for KDE
    CharOp: Lists of Necessary Magic Items
    Homebrew: My proudest achievement, a translation of vancian spellcasting to psionic mechanics. Other brew can be found in my Homebrewer's Extended Signature.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Jarian's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Crazytown
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernir View Post
    No love for the Eidolon (and that-other-weird-Ghostwalk-class), Jarian?
    Eidoloncer. I'm not sure those count, given that they're really more like templates than anything. I can add them to the list, but it would just be Fighter (ghost) and Sorcerer (ghost), to be honest.

    Plz did something similar a bit back. Here it is, if you want to compare notes.
    *compares notes*
    Last edited by Jarian; 2012-06-16 at 11:44 PM.
    Avatar by the illustrious Derjuin.
    Homebrewer's Signature
    If you use any of my homebrew, or even if you just have a strong opinion on it, please let me know. Feedback is always useful.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Lightbringer Adison, Swordmage priestess of Pelor, by the very talented Darwin.

    Bunny!Adison by Alarra!

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    I love how the conclusions from PlzBreakMyCampaign support my point.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    T.G. Oskar's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Lemme see if I can make this short and concise. Hard task, but well...

    Ever since the DMG was published and the Open Gaming License was devised, WotC pretty much encouraged people to homebrew. The idea of taking the Ranger, removing a few things, adding a few others and making it the "Undead Slayer" was an example of how homebrew can exist. So, in a sense, the developers encourage people to make homebrewed content (part of DM arbitration) in various ways. What the devs insisted, though, was to make it self-contained; if you were to make a class, do it for your own campaign.

    Now, homebrew is a very, let's say, "volatile" word. Since it encompasses about 50% or so of all player-driven non-canon content (the other half are house rules, which affect mechanics in a more direct way), it's quite vast. Homebrew encompasses all new content (new classes, new PrCs, new feats, new spells, new equipment and new monsters) plus all attempts to fix the content: here, the ratio of content differs (I'd say 3:2, with new content being more than fixed content). Even then, you can sub-divide all homebrewed content on smaller bits: classes (new and fixed), PrCs (new and fixed), feats (new and fixed), and so on.

    Small homebrew works whenever there's something that can be already done with a build, except for one thing. Example of new content enhancing a build would be a feat that, for example, made a blend of the benefits of Ranger and Rogue (a theoretical Outlaw Hunter feat, a la Swift Hunter feat). Example of fixed content enhancing a build would be, say, a fix to Two-Weapon Fighting allowing an extra feat slot to be used for enhancing the build, or perhaps increasing defense (by fixing Two-Weapon Defense), or enabling new options (such as using both weapons in an attack action by collapsing the benefit of Double Hit/Dual Strike into TWF or ITWF). Those are controlled and effective options.

    Medium homebrew (here I'd mention monsters and probably some PrCs) work whenever you want to spice up the campaign with new (or improved) content. Throwing a new monster is essentially throwing a curveball to the party, who may know by memory the hit point, AC, attack bonus and saving throws of all creatures of CR between 1-10, and allows for exciting new options. Fixed medium content, such as 5-level PrCs, allow to use existing game content that would otherwise be less of a challenge to the party (such as, say, allowing the use of a Drunken Master and making it a challenge for the party instead of a joke). In this sense, it's still easy to gauge the options when used against the party, but not as much when used in benefit of the party (such as if the party can use the option).

    Larger homebrew content (here I include all classes) are harder to gauge their effectiveness. New content may include new mechanics, which involves learning the whole traits of the class in order to make it useful, so it involves a lot of time and effort. Fixes to classes are easier (the closer it is to the original, the easier it is to understand it, albeit not exactly better), particularly if the class was originally a weak option or if nerfing the class because it's too powerful. Even then, fixes are borderline between useful and complicated: if they add new mechanics or non-popular mechanics, there's a chance it becomes a little too complex and thus hard to understand, thus hard to gauge how effective it is.

    Project-level homebrew content (think the Tomes, d20 Rebirth, E6, Legend) are essentially new games emulating the d20 system, so it only applies whenever you find that there's just too many problems with the system to keep patching it.

    I mention all of this for a few reasons. For starters, blanket ban on homebrew is entirely pointless, as there's material that's easy to digest, and easier to control (a new feat, spell or magic item is much easier to control than a new ACF, PrC or actual class); whoever does that may have its actual reasons, but they aren't as strong. In this case, there are three answers:
    • Homebrew is disallowed because the DM finds that there's no need to fix the system, or houserules do a better service than homebrew content. In this case, the weight of the decision inclines towards the DM because s/he's the arbiter of the game.
    • Homebrew content is disallowed because the DM is unable to review all the content. This is reasonable enough for medium or large-sized content (and essentially a straight NO for project-level homebrew), but it flinches towards small-size content because revising it takes no less and no more than checking a new splatbook.
    • Homebrew is disallowed because of bias. This is a definitely wrong answer, because in essence, the only difference between homebrewed content and splatbook content is the publishing and the (small, if any) dev-based playtesting. If you have time to check on a new splatbook for a game, you have enough time to check on any kind of homebrew barring project-sized content, as homebrew is usually smaller than a splatbook. Using the same criteria for splatbooks is essentially cognate to the first option (the game is fine as is; use your imagination), but allowing splatbooks essentially crushes any argument in favor of the DM. The splatbook content and homebrewed content aren't exactly the same in terms of quality; yet, splatbook content has usually, before publication, a smaller and somewhat subjective reviewing process in comparison to homebrew, which has a chance of being either ignored, slightly reviewed or painstakingly reviewed, all through peer reviewing from different degrees of optimization (and different philosophies of play, as well).


    To answer the question, you have to observe what makes a DM accept homebrew. I already explained the pointlessness of blanket banning (barring the argument of "my game is fine as-is", because you're somewhat forced to uphold to the agreement between parts when accepting a friend or a complete stranger as a DM), so the answer is best reduced to "why a DM would agree to get homebrew?" In this sense, the DM may want to add homebrew because:
    • The existing material does not fulfill the vision of the player's build. Based on how many times I see Saiyan Warriors, brightly colored Ninjas using chakra-based Ninjutsu and Shinigami wielding massive Zanpakuto, it's evident D&D doesn't cover all build options; that said, that such options are completely out of sync with the nature of the game (simulation of high fantasy through specific combat rules and somewhat lax social rules). In this case, the DM has agreed to allow the out-of-sync build to apply in his/her game, but the game can't replicate the build without a heavy, heavy, heavy amount of refluffing, part of which may not be akin to the expectations of the player. In this case, the DM is attempting to find a way to allow the player his/her build, but in a simpler, somewhat balanced way. This also applies to legitimate builds that otherwise wouldn't be capable of happening in-game.
    • The existing material allows the player to fulfill its build, but the rules stack up against the player, and thus the player contributes less and less. For example: a Fire-focused Sorcerer can be done entirely with Core + splats (Sorcerer, Elemental Savant, Spell Focus: Evocation, Piercing Evocation, etc.), but the amount of creatures with fire resistance makes the build weak. Having a homebrewed feat that works like Piercing Cold but for fire spells allows the player to contribute in-game (or at least, in combat) more than it would do otherwise.
    • The DM finds that a class is not up to par with its archetype, or that it can't fulfill what its archetype represents. This includes all the fixes you see, particularly of Tier 5 and 6 classes (hence, all the fixes to Fighter, Monk and Paladin). In this case, the DM may have its reasons why not to refluff (I know most people here say that the Warblade replaces the Fighter, the Swordsage replaces the Monk and the...ugh...Crusader replaces the Paladin, but the other position still stands), and thus agrees on homebrew and is willing to review alternatives akin to the original concept. Likewise, a DM may agree that the Monk isn't based on psionics (and thus does not allow Tashalatora by principle, nor Psionic /Fist/of Zuoken), or that a Samurai cannot be represented well by the Warblade (the original archetype of the Samurai isn't the master of kenjutsu but the mounted archer using the yumi) and that sees the current options are not to par (a Fighter/Cavalier with Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery and most archery feats won't be capable of doing much outside of combat because of it's specialization).

    In all three cases, homebrew fills a point: D&D is incomplete or incapable of dealing with the player's imagination OR does not produce the desired simulation OR offers a weak option if attempting to simulate the concept entirely. There's a point where refluffing isn't enough: a Warblade is a master of techniques and maneuvers but not a master of weapons in any sense of the word, and the lack of ranged combat styles (barring Bloodstorm Blade, and that's mostly relegated to the nearest 100 ft.) definitely affects them. Likewise, the Swordsage is a potent combatant, but there's not much synergy between its skills and its abilities (aside from Concentration and Jump which apply to Diamond Mind and Tiger Claw respectively), not entirely fulfilling the mechanical blend between "martial combatant" and "skill-monkey" that, in theory, the Monk represented (as the original version combined traits of the Fighting Man and the Thief, believe it or not). Likewise, the Crusader is limited only to a small subset of the divine, in comparison to the Paladin (Crusader only has smites and Devoted Spirit, whereas the Paladin has access to divine spells and divine feats through Turn Undead), and requires some very specific multiclassing to replicate : sure, Ruby Knight VVindicator casts better than a Paladin, has the same amount of divine feats AND uses Maneuvers unlike the Paladin; now explain to me how the stealth-based abilities can apply to a divine champion of Heironeous, god of chivalry, or to St. Cuthbert, god of common sense...without altering anything from any of the classes. That goes without mention that the "unarmed" Swordsage is effectively a homebrew option offered by the devs, so it's basically a homebrew solution to the Monk, which doesn't invalidate other homebrew options aside from the fact that the devs offer it as an option, while still considering the Monk to be distinct enough from the Swordsage...

    Long story short (which means I failed on my task; though I never was too attached to the idea): because homebrew covers what the developers couldn't cover, or fixes what the developer couldn't fix on its own with errata, or expands the options offered in-game. Homebrew, unlike official content, is a gamble: either it's broken (as in, far too good and all too powerful), good, or b0rked (as in, horrible and shoddy). However, the range of options you have open through homebrew has the chance to cover what you want better than official content, or cover what official content can't.

    So, it's good to use homebrew, despite Sturgeon's Law; even if 90% of homebrew is crud, that 10% that's gold is more than worth it.
    Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
    Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
    On Lawful Good:
    Quote Originally Posted by firebrandtoluc View Post
    My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.
    T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Jarian's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Crazytown
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    Lemme see if I can make this short and concise. Hard task, but well...
    A good read by Oskar as always, but I don't think you can call it concise when it fills up two screens top to bottom.
    Avatar by the illustrious Derjuin.
    Homebrewer's Signature
    If you use any of my homebrew, or even if you just have a strong opinion on it, please let me know. Feedback is always useful.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Lightbringer Adison, Swordmage priestess of Pelor, by the very talented Darwin.

    Bunny!Adison by Alarra!

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Having a homebrewed feat that works like Piercing Cold but for fire spells allows the player to contribute in-game (or at least, in combat) more than it would do otherwise.
    Nitpick: Searing Spell (Sandstorm?) does this, and also allows you to hurt creatures with the [Fire] subtype.

    And this brings me to a point of mine: I very rarely encounter an archetype that I can't cover under the 3.5 ruleset (mounted archer is the only one that comes to mind). Maybe it's because y'all get more chance to play than I do, 'cause it's definitely not because of optimization level.
    On creating medieval thermobaric detonations:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravens_cry View Post
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    On rewriting your own past into a stable time loop of invulnerability:
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    Kardar233's Illithid:
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    kardar233's Tyr: So ok, it seems to me that your character evades death o_O. Congratulations *fanfare*

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    Nitpick: Searing Spell (Sandstorm?) does this, and also allows you to hurt creatures with the [Fire] subtype.

    And this brings me to a point of mine: I very rarely encounter an archetype that I can't cover under the 3.5 ruleset (mounted archer is the only one that comes to mind). Maybe it's because y'all get more chance to play than I do, 'cause it's definitely not because of optimization level.
    I have to agree with this. Most of the times there is already an option for that in the rules as written. There are very few concepts that can't be done with what's out there already. I find most homebrew is simply unnecessary, but people have fun writing it, so it has some point to it.
    There are plenty of good homebrew and points in which 3.5 could use more material, though. Warlock invocations, new maneuvers and disciplines for ToB, new vestiges, that kind of thing is useful (when it is good) because there is so many of it in the rules.
    But when you see a homebrewed spell to deal fire damage, someone probably never cared enough to read the Spell Compendium.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    T.G. Oskar's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    Nitpick: Searing Spell (Sandstorm?) does this, and also allows you to hurt creatures with the [Fire] subtype.
    Good. How about Electricity or Acid? Note that there's no "Sonic Savant" or sonic-specialized character? How about specializing in [Earth] spells?

    And this brings me to a point of mine: I very rarely encounter an archetype that I can't cover under the 3.5 ruleset (mounted archer is the only one that comes to mind). Maybe it's because y'all get more chance to play than I do, 'cause it's definitely not because of optimization level.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I have to agree with this. Most of the times there is already an option for that in the rules as written. There are very few concepts that can't be done with what's out there already. I find most homebrew is simply unnecessary, but people have fun writing it, so it has some point to it.
    Recall that fulfilling an archetype can be done, but making it work with the system is equally as important. Certainly, mounted archery exists in D&D; however, whether it's completely useful in combat defines whether the archetype can be followed.

    There's also other archetypes that may be fulfilled in various ways, but that only cover part of the full archetype. Take, for example, the Ninja: most people think of Ninjas as these awesome assassins that use Oriental juju for their tricks. In reality, they used more deception and built a reputation around it. The Rogue CAN, in essence, fulfill the classic Ninja archetype, but perhaps not the perception of a certain person regarding the Ninja (which may be closer to that of Naruto than Ninja Scroll). A Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster, or a Spellthief, might get close, but won't cover everything: the first build, however, requires the use of arcane magic and to limit that to traditional Ninja tricks (invisibility, disguise, perhaps some pyrotechnics) rather than expand upon what an arcane spellcaster can do. Swordsage, on the other hand, can't fulfill what a Ninja could reputedly do (not the best at disguising than other classes, their Hide skills are great but not necessarily their aquatic combat skills). And, to complete all other bits to fully resemble the archetype, you have to compete with a limited set of resources, which means you have to compete with effectiveness. Homebrew has the trait of dealing with both archetype fulfilling and general effectiveness, but with the risk of overshotting (or undershotting) the goal.

    There are plenty of good homebrew and points in which 3.5 could use more material, though. Warlock invocations, new maneuvers and disciplines for ToB, new vestiges, that kind of thing is useful (when it is good) because there is so many of it in the rules.
    But when you see a homebrewed spell to deal fire damage, someone probably never cared enough to read the Spell Compendium.
    Perhaps the homebrewed Fire spell covers something that doesn't appear on the Spell Compendium? That's an example of how the official content sometimes overshoots itself: that there are so many Fire spells and some of them overlap in what others do (what's the difference between Fireball and Fireburst again?), that they fall into redundancy sometimes. Note how many options there are for Sorcerers to use metamagic and cast as a standard action (Rapid Spell, Immediate Metamagic, and then you have Races of the Dragon and Complete Mage giving the SAME ability over and over). So...you can't blame homebrew for redundancy when the official content does the same.
    Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
    Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
    On Lawful Good:
    Quote Originally Posted by firebrandtoluc View Post
    My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.
    T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarian View Post
    A good read by Oskar as always, but I don't think you can call it concise when it fills up two screens top to bottom.
    For Otto that is pretty concise. I'm not sure he's actually capable of making a post with fewer than 500 words. That's why we love him though.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    eggs's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    There's also an element of parsimony.

    If I want a nightcrawler-type build in the WotC game, I'm probably going to be jumping between incarnum and tome of battle dips and setting-oriented PrCs - jumping through hoops for prerequisites, waiting a long time for a build to develop and picking up all sorts of unwanted baggage along the way (spells, soulmelds, fluff additions like illiteracy).

    And WotC D&D has some quirks that are difficult to shake, even where they would be unintuitive or unnecessary for a concept's balance - take D&D's per-day limits on abilities or the single-purpose fireballs that deal Xd6 damage but can't be used to melt glass or heat a room.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    Good. How about Electricity or Acid? Note that there's no "Sonic Savant" or sonic-specialized character? How about specializing in [Earth] spells?
    On that front, I admit that I use what you'd call "Small Homebrew" as a playability piece: if someone says "I want to make an Electricity-based caster" I'll give them "Electrifying Spell", a Searing Spell-equivalent.

    Recall that fulfilling an archetype can be done, but making it work with the system is equally as important. Certainly, mounted archery exists in D&D; however, whether it's completely useful in combat defines whether the archetype can be followed.
    That was actually what I was addressing: when I say "cover under the 3.5 ruleset" I'm referring to having it at an acceptable (to me) standard of playability.
    On creating medieval thermobaric detonations:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravens_cry View Post
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    On rewriting your own past into a stable time loop of invulnerability:
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    Kardar233's Illithid:
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    kardar233's Tyr: So ok, it seems to me that your character evades death o_O. Congratulations *fanfare*

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kazyan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    Good. How about Electricity or Acid? Note that there's no "Sonic Savant" or sonic-specialized character? How about specializing in [Earth] spells?
    Supplying information: the Argent Savant's adaptation section pretty much says "go ahead and change everything here to some other energy type if necessary".

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Averis Vol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    I'm pretty sure it's because homebrew is fun. like right now im playing one of oskars Biz-Kesmet. I found it looking for something on the hexblade, a class I have always loved the fluff of, and have yet to regret choosing it. Equally, as fledgling as I may be, I homebrew a lot with my group; I like my games on a certain par and If a class doesn't meet it me and a friend get to work building a new balanced character. hell, we even create all new characters for ****s-n-giggles. I think the last thing I did was turn paladin into a PrC, fix the monk and make a PrC based of the assassins of the house of black and white in a song of ice and fire.

    As always it comes down to taste. And honestly, my group plays DnD to have fun, so If we have a concept we get crackin.
    A thing I made! The Spirited Blade; warrior of the mind come by and tell me what you think.

    May glory flow forever more to The Mad Hatter for bringing Haeros; Master of the Transcendant Style to my avatar box!

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    I'm not opposed to homebrew, but for me it's there for making use of cool and interesting mechanics. I can realize the vast majority of possible concepts using the 3.5 ruleset, so it's not really a matter of matching the concept to the mechanics; it's more that I want to try out something with interesting, different mechanics.

    If I want to play a tentacly Lovecraftian horror, I'd go Wildshape Mystic Ranger into Warshaper and grab Aberration Wildshape along the way. But if I've already played Wildshapers recently, I might decide to use the homebrew Ozodrin class instead, for variety.
    On creating medieval thermobaric detonations:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravens_cry View Post
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    On rewriting your own past into a stable time loop of invulnerability:
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    Kardar233's Illithid:
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    kardar233's Tyr: So ok, it seems to me that your character evades death o_O. Congratulations *fanfare*

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    T.G. Oskar's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    For Otto that is pretty concise. I'm not sure he's actually capable of making a post with fewer than 500 words. That's why we love him though.
    ...can I sig that? Otto? Why, I have a somewhat long mane of hair and I listen to old-school heavy metal, but I don't look like Slash or drive the school bus...
    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    That was actually what I was addressing: when I say "cover under the 3.5 ruleset" I'm referring to having it at an acceptable (to me) standard of playability.
    That's a reasonable thought. However, the fact that it may not be acceptable to others, and that the best course of action is to agree on a standard of playability (not at a global scale, but at least on a table scale), necessarily has to accommodate homebrew content.

    If you're the DM, you have the arbitration advantage: you set up what rules go or not within the game. Yet, DMing is also a social contract: you agree to arbitrate the game, be the storyteller and the mathemagician for all numbers, but you also agree to let the players have fun (so as long as you can have fun as well). Not allowing homebrewing because you find that there are alternatives isn't inherently bad or wrong, but may cause conflict within that social contract: the player agrees that their idea of fun isn't the same as that of others, but the others agree in the same way that their ideas of playing aren't the same. Thus, when jumping the hurdles isn't enough (after at least attempting to leap through some of them), there are three options: the player acquit (the player will begrudgingly agree, but perhaps won't be having as much fun as intended), the DM acquits (hence, homebrew is allowed), or both sides reach a medium point (perhaps the DM houserules something in the player's favor, or allows only a small amount of homebrewing but advises the player to try and remain as close as possible to original content).

    As a player, on the other hand, you don't have that advantage. Note how many times you see threads where people say "my DM doesn't like ToB because s/he says it's 'weeaboo fightan magic'; my DM doesn't like Psionics because s/he doesn't like 'sci-fi mind magic'; I wanna play a Monk but I dunno how/I'm playing a Monk and s/he's not doing things well". Homebrew may address those moments where not all content is allowed, but the existing material simply can't help the build become playable. Chances of that DM accepting homebrew are inherently scarcer than accepting original content (if s/he's not accepting original content because of bias, then it's possible that the same bias affects all homebrew as "unbalanced pieces of crud"), but well-done fixes or alternatives may make the DM reconsider. The other side of the coin as per the DM discussion stands: what happens when, after agreeing on the DMs terms and making a character that closely resembles what you want, you realize you're not having fun because the investment is just too much and doesn't allow for leverage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Supplying information: the Argent Savant's adaptation section pretty much says "go ahead and change everything here to some other energy type if necessary".
    Wouldn't that be considered homebrew then? Note that the Argent Savant's adaptation AND the Elemental Savant already indulge in some degree of redundancy, as Elemental Savant offers different abilities but a few of them involve upgrading the character's skill with an element. To put it best; the abilities of both classes may be either redundant or synergistic, and rarely leading to horizontal expansion (i.e. giving more options).

    That said: I find that adaptations as presented are invitations for homebrew. If you believe that 3.5 content is fine as is and there's no need for homebrew, you can't by definition accept adaptations if they're vague enough. Unarmed Swordsage is borderline this, but it's not an official ACF (note that it has none of the ACF formatting); it's an adaptation which has a set of defined rules that make it close to an ACF. On the other hand, the adaptation section of the Argent Savant involves directly tampering with the class abilities (just changing the tag from "Argent" and "Force" to "Crimson" and "Fire" may not be enough, given that some of the PrCs abilities deal with enhancing the effect of spells such as Shield and Mage Armor, which are defensive in origin, whereas Fire spells aren't always defensive in origin. That adaptation section is what I'd define as vague enough to be considered an invitation to homebrew, and deviant enough to merit the discussion "if you alter a PrC in accordance to its Adaptation section, can it be considered official content or homebrew?"
    Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
    Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
    On Lawful Good:
    Quote Originally Posted by firebrandtoluc View Post
    My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.
    T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    ...can I sig that?
    Go for it. (Though that would have been a great place to prove me wrong by leaving your post ending with that response :p)

    Otto? Why, I have a somewhat long mane of hair and I listen to old-school heavy metal, but I don't look like Slash or drive the school bus...
    IDGI
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Gnorman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5 homebrew, why?

    Seerow, I believe he also likes to get blotto.

    On a serious note: as a DM I allow homebrew because 90% of the time it will allow my players the chance to experiment with new mechanics, express their creativity in new ways, or just plain have more fun. Yes, there are limits and all homebrew should require scrutiny, but I always offer my players the opportunity to run it by me first, and if necessary, reach a compromise rather than have one (or both) of us be unhappy at the table. It does make for extra work, but I consider that time to study and evaluate the result of another person's creative process - enlightening and inspirational at best, curious and amusing at worst.

    Adherence to rules simply because they were printed that way is unnecessary and potentially harmful, I think. Every table is different. Sacred cows need to be slaughtered now and then.

    Granted, I am heavily biased - designing the game is more fun for me than actually playing it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •