Why Homebrew in 3.5?

[Knaight]

But not built out ENOUGH. I don't wanna exploit every rule in existence, I wanna play this very specific wonky character/campaign for which there are probably rules to do, but maybe not.

This. If your goal is to explore a defined space, 3.5 has you covered indefinitely. If you're looking to do something specific and use it as a tool to that end it routinely comes up across stuff that can't be done without homebrew, or even material that the system is fundamentally unsuited for.

I find it interesting that so many here cite "balance" in one way or another

As if 3.5 was ever a game we played for its exceptional balance.

Then there's this. Is homebrew often unbalanced? Sure. Is that any different than first party material? Nope.

[Florian]

In some cases, just for "smooth sailing". Some builds can be ugly, some ways to fulfill the prereqs of a PrC even more so. Take Mystic Theurge as an example. Early entry shenanigans aside, that's one of the PrC that you could home-brew to a full 20 level class and hand a player to satisfy the "urge to theurge" right from level one, without much breaking the game (and no, no further PrC on this).

[Random Sanity]

I can't argue with the time-honored part of the D&D experience. But the problem, specifically, is with 3E/3.5. By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.

.

>3E/3.5
>Balanced

Pick only one.

Seriously, when you have as much variance in character power as "guy who can rewrite reality with a hand-wave vs guy who hits things with a stick" BEFORE you get into splatbooks, and the splatbooks only widen the gap, talking about the game being balanced is an insult to the concept of balance.

D&D has a lot of things going for it, but "balance" has never been on the list. Least of all in 3rd Ed.

[Nifft]

3.5e can appear roughly balanced if you've got skillful players who want it to appear balanced, or if you've got a skillful DM who is willing to put in the effort to houserule & homebrew.

So yeah, homebrew can be a tool to improve the inherently poor balance of D&D 3.5e.

That's part of why I've done a lot of homebrewing: to improve cool concepts that need some mechanical help.

Another part is fun: engaging in creative design is fun.

[Darth Ultron]

B]
Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?[/B]

Simple: The above statement is Not True.

D&D 3.5E does have a ton of books and stuff, but it is hardly all that ''expansive''. Even a glance at the ''pile of stuff'' shows tons and tons of holes and glaring emissions. It's not like ''they'' ever could think of ''everything''.

Like 3X has one book that is 1/3 about elves...and that is it, nothing EVER needs to be published about elves again? Rubbish.

And, oh, about half of the stuff in the books is downright awful. They make a ''demon summoner'' whatever, and give it abilities like ''+2 to intimidate'' and ''can speak Abyssal''. Wow...so exciting to play such a dull class. Granted this is true of about half the Core stuff too.

And then ''all that stuff'' does not cover everything.

[inexorabletruth]

>3E/3.5
>Balanced

Pick only one.

Seriously, when you have as much variance in character power as "guy who can rewrite reality with a hand-wave vs guy who hits things with a stick" BEFORE you get into splatbooks, and the splatbooks only widen the gap, talking about the game being balanced is an insult to the concept of balance.

D&D has a lot of things going for it, but "balance" has never been on the list. Least of all in 3rd Ed.

Lol! Ok. You're not wrong. But what I said was "attempt" at balance. My experience is that Tier 6 can coexists in a party with Tier 1 and play a sustainable and vital role within the party if you play by RAW. As I've mentioned before, literally all my games are played by RAW, and I've never seen a need for Homebrew to fix the party balance in order to give everyone a playable role in the game.

[JyP]

Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?

For an example : there are prestige classes for PCs to better work with their mounts, up to Halfling Outriders, but there's not a prestige class for goblinoids to be Wolf or Worg Riders. Hence a custom Worg Rider Prestige Class, mixing mechanisms from these other prestige classes.

[Nifft]

Lol! Ok. You're not wrong. But what I said was "attempt" at balance. My experience is that Tier 6 can coexists in a party with Tier 1 and play a sustainable and vital role within the party if you play by RAW. As I've mentioned before, literally all my games are played by RAW, and I've never seen a need for Homebrew to fix the party balance in order to give everyone a playable role in the game.

It kinda sounds like you're shifting the goalposts.

I can tell you how homebrew has helped my games, and I can talk about my own experience with the failure of D&D to provide well-balanced options.

But now you're talking about your own lack of experience as if that lack is somehow a counter-argument. Nobody can breach that particular wall except you, so you've got an iron-clad defense against being influenced by this discussion.

If that's the case, what kind of discussion could possibly be fruitful?


Creativity is fun.

Improving the game is fun.

Playing a more balanced game is fun.

You should have a number of answers to "why homebrew" by now.

[Hecuba]

I take a pretty negative stance towards homebrew because ninety percent of the time what my players ask to use is trash. Banning D&DWiki homebrew goes a long way, at least.

Homebrew should always be reviewed and - despite a few diamonds in the rough - most of the stuff on D&DWiki should probably not pass review. This forum, in contrast, has generally turned out a higher quality product.

I can't argue with the time-honored part of the D&D experience. But the problem, specifically, is with 3E/3.5. By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.

I've put this through the test. The minds on the Playground are extraordinary at crunch by RAW. I've requested builds for BBEGs, mentor NPCs, and "just because it would be cool" builds here before and I've never stumped the group. From Kankuro of the Naruto series, to Finn the Human, to Rockem Sockem Robots, to the X-Men. I've never been let down, which leads me to believe that with a very high probability of success and enough available levels, one can create just about anything in 3.5. Which leads me to believe that homebrews can't actually enhance the flavor of a setting. My only observation heretofore is that it is either a redundant act, or a way to circumvent the level/feat taxes needed to acquire a certain build type.

In 4E, the exact opposite is true. I've read through some 4E Homebrews and could be convinced to play them and even allow them in my campaigns. But that is because 4E is, by design, vanilla. The doors are left wide open for homebrew to customize the gameplay experience. If 4E was a geographic location, it would be a quiet suburb trying to get the funding for a tourist attraction so it can grow. 3.5 is a bustling overcrowded metropolis with skyscrapers rubbing against each other and crowded sidewalks bleeding into the street. There's no room for growth.

Game balance in 3.5 is certainly complex, and I would also call it intricate. I would not, however, consider it to be delicate. Indeed, I find it quite robust - a tier 1-tier 4 spread for a table is workable if you put some attention into it, and that is a very big difference in power balance. Indeed, a slight change in balance from dropping feat taxes and similar can often be a good tool to address balance if someone is struggling because the build is not working like expected.

More generally, however, your examples reveal your underlying outlook on homebrew: you consider it, at best, a suspect necessity. Yes, you can probably toggle together the abilities you want from different classes without homebrew. From your perspective, that seams to mark homebrew as unnecessary.

From my perspective, I would take it as a good excuse for some light home brew to flesh out the idea. I like the process, much like I like CharOp. It's not why should I support homebrew in 3.5 - it's why shouldn't I.

---

An example from a recent table: I had a character who wanted to play a high Tier 3 divine caster with a focus on domains and the idea of being blessed/aided by a specific deity. For a simple CharOp build, this is relatively straight forward - divine bard moving into Sovereign Speaker, being selective with spells known, & refluffing bardic music as divine aid.

Once you've recognized that, however, it can be translated into a new class with relatively little effort. Start with the Bard Chassis. Move from the spells
known mechanic to a Domains only mechanic. Start with 2 domains at 1. Create the idea of "secondary" domains gained at 5, 10, & 15 - works like the normal ones, but you can't cast the from those domains for your highest level spells-per-day. At 20, add a final domain and make all domains full domains (I like powerful capstones at 20 - you could just give a 3rd full domain instead if you don't).

Since you have no 0th level domain spells, rework the spells per day schedule to start at 1 and grant a new spell level at 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, & 19. This progression - which caps at 7 instead of 6 - paired with the fact that you'll always start a new spell level with at least 2 spells know, should make the spell casting a bit more powerful than a bard even after accounting for the more limited flexability in spell selection.

Rework bardic music as divine blessings and rename them appropriately. Move the bonus types from morale to sacred/profane (depending on deity). Cut bardic knowledge. Cut counter-song. Give the character an aura like a cleric. Depending on the balance point of the game, consider adding in divine grace, potentially at a delay. Bump Inspire Heroics up one level higher/

The net effect is still safely in tier 3. I don't see much in the way of profound balance concerns. And you get to play the idea from level 1, instead of waiting until level 5 when you can enter Sovereign Speaker.

[Vaern]

You can do pretty much anything you want with all what's available, but maybe you don't have access to all of the books. I once homebrewed a prestige class that was meant to give a sorcerer of Pelor a bit of divine flavor, infusing fire spells with divine light that would make it more potent against undead and evil outsiders. I later learned that it was pretty much the same conceptually as a class in one of the Eberron books, which I have never had access to, that did more or less the same thing with sorcerers of the Silver Flame.
Or maybe someone has a specific character concept in mind, and said person isn't as well-versed in the game's mechanics as some of the people here are. Most causal players will likely take one base class and one, maybe two, prestige classes, but I often see builds here that involve 5 or 6 classes, occasionally with the levels broken up in awkward ways to optimize the spell progression. Some people may simply find it easier to make their own class than to determine what cocktail of existing classes it might take to achieve their desired character.

[ericgrau]

I find it interesting that so many here cite "balance" in one way or another

As if 3.5 was ever a game we played for its exceptional balance.

There are degrees of balance and imbalance. Large scale homebrew is in its own league of suck. Small scale is easier to handle.

[Telonius]

I think that part of the problem is that, however poorly balanced it is, the published sources usually made an attempt to be balanced. They have things like editors, even if they miss things (and sometimes very big things). Yeah, PHB is the least balanced book, etc. But there's a difference between not realizing how powerful a Druid was going to be just out of the can, and deliberately making something like a Lightning Warrior. With homebrew, there's no limit to absurdity, because there's no limit to how badly people are going to misunderstand (or deliberately sabotage) the game.

Well-crafted homebrew can be superior to published content, but it takes time and system mastery to know what's well-crafted.

[Elrak]

....
Or maybe someone has a specific character concept in mind, and said person isn't as well-versed in the game's mechanics as some of the people here are. ...

This is a good point, I myself do not use homebrew for my own characters but I have created a couple of them either a) in order to provide an easy to understand chassis for one of my gaming friends who have a good concept but are not as well versed in the system and do not want/enjoy going through thousands of pages of material to make that concept a reality or b) just out of pure joy of putting down the concept for a class I was playing with.

[Pleh]

Lol! Ok. You're not wrong. But what I said was "attempt" at balance. My experience is that Tier 6 can coexists in a party with Tier 1 and play a sustainable and vital role within the party if you play by RAW. As I've mentioned before, literally all my games are played by RAW, and I've never seen a need for Homebrew to fix the party balance in order to give everyone a playable role in the game.

RAW is not some magic solution that fixes 3e's balance issues.

Most of the Theoretical Optimization builds posted on forums like these never break RAW (maybe bend it, and maybe they break the crap outta RAI, but never breaking RAW, that's like the only rule they can't break).

I mean, no 20th level Fighter can ever really play the same game at the table with a 20th level Gate Chaining DMM Cleric.

RAW is more often than not exactly the reason 3.5 ISN'T balanced. That's why we often supplement it with a healthy dose of RAI to tone down some of the wilder interpretations of its wording.

[Dragovon]

Technically I play Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 (or 3.0). That said, by definition I've got so many houserules my game is effectively homebrewed. Why? Because despite making the change to PF (because I really like most of the rules changes), there are some things back from 3.0 and from 3.5 that I still like better...so I use them instead. At the same time, I allow most 3rd party content from all 3 editions of the game. Why? Because 1) I like to let the players play what they like. They find an old 3.0 PrC that they want to try out. Sure...go for it. They want a PF 3rd party hybrid class. Sure...go for it. The relevance to homebrew is the fact that because I allow most things, I have to come up with rules that weren't written for how some of these things interact (and to change things that prove to be completely broken). If one of my players were to write up a class they thought was cool and that they wanted to play (or a race...whatever), I don't have a problem with it. I may have some adjustments to reduce the level of brokenness. I don't even have a problem fitting it in my world (which is really a multiverse where lots of published worlds as well as multiple of my own worlds exist...and people sometimes travel between them).

The bottom line is that we all play the game to have fun. I have fun telling a story and putting challenges in front of my players. Different players have fun from different things. A couple players are always wanting to experiment with new classes, one player is interested in the roleplaying and the nuances of the world. Other players try to power game. They often aren't balanced compared to each other. They don't need to be. They accept that some things are just inherently more powerful than others. That's just the way it is. I support their desire to pursue what they find fun. This ends up in homebrew...but ultimately it's just about having fun.

[inexorabletruth]

The net effect is still safely in tier 3. I don't see much in the way of profound balance concerns. And you get to play the idea from level 1, instead of waiting until level 5 when you can enter Sovereign Speaker.

I suppose I can partially agree with that sentiment. But I feel like maybe your crunch knowledge is pretty next level, which can shield you from the more common negative side-effects of using homebrew to fast forward to the character the player ultimately wishes to play. The most common reason I have for why you should wait until level X to unlock Y ability, or just to start the campaign at level X in the first place is because from what I've experienced, that is the most consistent way to protect party balance.

Spoiler: About Party Balance

Show

I'm lacking a better phrase here. If anyone has the right word for what I'm saying, please feel free to correct me. I'm trying to say that everyone in the party can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR or ECL. The CoDzilla doesn't run the board while the monk and fighter hang back and wait for the coast to be clear. Everyone can get involved; everyone can play a role; everyone can have fun with their character.

When you give a level 1 character access to level 5 capabilities, you open the door to whole new possibilities for substitution levels, alt-classes, templates, negative level adjustments, and a variety of cheese buried deep in the splatbooks that can throw a party way off balance. This is fine, if that's what the group really wants to do, but more often than not, I've seen it create one special snowflake and 3 or 4 bored PCs, which culminates in another silly arms race against the DM.

Spoiler: A quick example, if you will: TL;DR Homebrews + Secret Cheese = Hot Melty Mess

Show

I joined a low-op, low-tier campaign (it's what I generally prefer to play) level 2. I built an Aristocrat/Paladin of Tyranny (Mounted Combat build) and the DM granted me some extra masterwork gear due to my backstory (being the son of a tyrannical noble). Basically, everyone got something nice that was pertinent to their backstory because the DM had approved a homebrew feat that a player had suggested. This was years ago, so I don't remember the feat, but I tried to warn the DM about the potential dangers of it, because of what it gave the character access to.

He ended up building, somehow, a Lloth-touched, flesh-made, multi-headed, extra-armed, medium sized, half-ogre with full weapon proficiency... at level 2. The guy had a +17 to hit. His charisma was so off the charts that he just intimidated us into doing whatever he wanted, and the rest of the party just served as his cohorts, carrying his loot, and running interference or performing chores like "ride ahead and tell X noble we are arriving and will be requiring rooms in his palace." I tried to stick it out, but the game was excruciating. I bailed when we hit level three and the template-monster started talking about his new bonus feat options.

I'm pretty sure that's the worst case I can think of, but it still makes the point. The higher up you get in levels, the more options you have to build whatever. That's just good RPG sense. Cutting through the feat/skill/level taxes early on in order to play something below level 5 (this is especially true at Level 1) that would make more since in a level 10+ campaign is asking for trouble.

And before anyone jumps in with notions of build altruism, I want you to know that I realize not all players are closeted munchkins just waiting to annihilate party balance. In fact, I believe that game-breaker munchkins are the exception to the norm. I'm just saying it tears a rift where there doesn't need to be one. And that rift allows room for cheese, which creates a headache for the DM, and often throws party balance in the garbage.

[inexorabletruth]

RAW is not some magic solution that fixes 3e's balance issues.

Most of the Theoretical Optimization builds posted on forums like these never break RAW (maybe bend it, and maybe they break the crap outta RAI, but never breaking RAW, that's like the only rule they can't break).

I mean, no 20th level Fighter can ever really play the same game at the table with a 20th level Gate Chaining DMM Cleric.

RAW is more often than not exactly the reason 3.5 ISN'T balanced. That's why we often supplement it with a healthy dose of RAI to tone down some of the wilder interpretations of its wording.

You make a great point... at high levels. Once things get epic, it's a whole new mess. And I can concede a need for homebrew at level 20+.

[inexorabletruth]

Technically I play Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 (or 3.0). That said, by definition I've got so many houserules my game is effectively homebrewed. Why? Because despite making the change to PF (because I really like most of the rules changes), there are some things back from 3.0 and from 3.5 that I still like better...so I use them instead. At the same time, I allow most 3rd party content from all 3 editions of the game. Why? Because 1) I like to let the players play what they like. They find an old 3.0 PrC that they want to try out. Sure...go for it. They want a PF 3rd party hybrid class. Sure...go for it.

The relevance to homebrew is the fact that because I allow most things, I have to come up with rules that weren't written for how some of these things interact (and to change things that prove to be completely broken).

And that doesn't spiral out of control for you? As I read what you wrote, all I see is "vicious cycle". Add more homebrews so you can balance it with more homebrews, which cancels out another rule, so you need another homebrew and a new homebrew to balance that homebrew...

Of course, bleeding between 3E and 3.5 can be fun. I use the Arms and Equipment guide in 3E for every campaign. I also like to throw in some monsters from 3E once in a while to shake things up and throw off meta-knowledge. But 3E and 3.5 are functionally similar enough to integrate smoothly. I can even dig from 3E Dragon Magazine, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron without a hiccup. But I've seen some seriously over-powered builds come from mixing Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 though. And you're right. The most efficient way to counteract that is with homebrew and house rules. Which kind of feels like creating the beast only to kill it. Then the vicious cycle begins.

[Hecuba]

I suppose I can partially agree with that sentiment. But I feel like maybe your crunch knowledge is pretty next level, which can shield you from the more common negative side-effects of using homebrew to fast forward to the character the player ultimately wishes to play.

I can agree without reservation that acceptable homebrew (much less good homebrew) requires significant system mastery. Indeed, I would say it requires greater system mastery that much of the bulk of direct applications of CharOp - because it is less likely there will be a ready-to-use internet optimization guide that you can apply (though I would peg the peak for applying CharOp as higher).

Keep in mind, however, that you'll generally also have the option to review and critique homebrew before it hits the table. That means that, if you have someone at the table who does have that kind of system mastery, it can often be leveraged for homebrew in ways that are uncomfortable for many tables for CharOp (because that seems more like playing the character for them).

[Deadline]

Spoiler: About Party Balance

Show

I'm lacking a better phrase here. If anyone has the right word for what I'm saying, please feel free to correct me. I'm trying to say that everyone in the party can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR or ECL. The CoDzilla doesn't run the board while the monk and fighter hang back and wait for the coast to be clear. Everyone can get involved; everyone can play a role; everyone can have fun with their character.

It's important to note that a Fighter can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR, even when the CoDzilla does Fighter better, the Druid's animal companion does Fighter better, and the Wizard is capable of summoning entities who can do Fighter better. The reason that isn't balanced is because if you took the Fighter out of the equation, the encounter is still resolved with no additional trouble. In other words, there is nothing justifying the Fighter's existence in that part. This can work out just fine as long as the player of the Fighter is ok with his one schtick being less effective than the secondary resources of the other party members.

But that isn't balanced. It's just everyone agreeing to have fun and not be bothered by the imbalances. Or everyone agreeing to not step on the toes of each others roles (which is tragically easy to do by accident with Tier 1 classes). This is sometimes referred to as the Gentleman's Agreement (a.k.a. "Don't be a d***").

And balance isn't really a thing in 3.5. Sure, the designers took an initial stab at it, but given that some of the worst offenders to balance are in the PHB, I wouldn't hang my hat on it.

[inexorabletruth]

It's important to note that a Fighter can function against an encounter with an appropriate CR, even when the CoDzilla does Fighter better, the Druid's animal companion does Fighter better, and the Wizard is capable of summoning entities who can do Fighter better. The reason that isn't balanced is because if you took the Fighter out of the equation, the encounter is still resolved with no additional trouble. In other words, there is nothing justifying the Fighter's existence in that part. This can work out just fine as long as the player of the Fighter is ok with his one schtick being less effective than the secondary resources of the other party members.

Meh... I can't really agree to that. Not as gospel truth, anyway.

Taken directly from Tier System for Classes:

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level.

This is especially true at low to mid levels. My wife can build a killer Fighter. She knows the mechanics well, and can use this class to make a mighty contender in any low to mid-level campaign. I'm not so bad with Monks... because I love playing as them. Even though my CharOp skills are modest, I can create a low level Monk that can positively manhandle any other class with an equal ECL regardless of Tier.

Of course, my argument shakes apart once you get to high level to epic level campaigns. Even if it didn't, the fact that your ECL can matter more than your Tier is enough to handle balance in game encounters as a DM. But of course this is spinning off into a different topic.

It would be more on point to say:
Homebrew doesn't exactly fix the issue of imbalance. If nothing else, as I've seen more often to be the case, it exacerbates the issue.

Therefore, how do you see that adding more rules to a rules heavy system simplify the issue of party balance?

[TheIronGolem]

Therefore, how do you see that adding more rules to a rules heavy system simplify the issue of party balance?

Literally every new piece of content published after the PHB added more rules to a rules-heavy system. Yet many of them improved balance by giving players better-balanced options for expressing character concepts (like the Swordsage or the Dread Necromancer).

If your intent is to argue against homebrew, take care to avoid using arguments that apply equally well to non-homebrew.

[Jama7301]

You can do pretty much anything you want with all what's available, but maybe you don't have access to all of the books.

I just want to highlight this. There's a LOT of books for 3/3.5, and I know I can't find a fraction of them at my local game store. I don't feel compelled to drop $20+ on a book that I'm going to use one option out of, when I can use my PHB as a framework for trying to create something.

[inexorabletruth]

I just want to highlight this. There's a LOT of books for 3/3.5, and I know I can't find a fraction of them at my local game store. I don't feel compelled to drop $20+ on a book that I'm going to use one option out of, when I can use my PHB as a framework for trying to create something.

Another good point. I can always relate to money being a problem. I lucked out, and got all my materials from a grognard who was like "Eff this, I'm out!" But even with all those books and magazines, I have to say I rarely use them anymore. I just google whatever race, class, or feat I need now. Didn't WoTC pretty much release everything as OGL in 3.5, like give or take a book or magazine that almost never gets used? I'm looking at you, Magic of Incarnum.

[Quarian Rex]

By inventing a streamlined Homebrew that cuts through the level/class/feat taxes, you undermine the attempt for game balance that exists in the complex and delicate ecosystem of the game mechanics.

Homebrew isn't necessarily something to shortcut progression. Usually it is more of a side-grade than an upgrade. There are some things that core just doesn't do very well, so homebrew fills in the gaps. As an example, I love magic users. The idea of having a character who can warp reality to achieve his goals is fascinating, and a concept rich with RP potential. But I hate vancian spellcasting. That leaves a pretty wide gulf between player desire and mechanical options. Sure, 3.5 eventually tried including some accommodating options late in its lifespan but they usually fell flat (mostly from pre-nerfing due to fear that removal of vancian limitations would create an unstoppable juggernaught, it never did). Homebrew comes to the rescue.

Or maybe a player wants to play a martial that can actually hold his own with the casters at higher levels (by eventually pulling off some truly mythological acts). Core fails at this (and fails hard). Looking at the Terramach we can see that homebrew does not.

The "ecosystem of the game mechanics" is not so delicate a thing. Does it require a good level of system mastery to seperate the wheat from the chaff? Sure. Any mildly experienced DM should have that level already (else I'd wonder how they are running their game). Homebrew can add a lot to a game, just as all good content can.

[inexorabletruth]

So, so far, the best points I've seen (or rather the points that make the most sense to me) are:

1. Not everyone can afford all the splats, so homebrew is the next best option.
2. Homebrew can be used to balance Epic Level campaigns.
3. Because it's cool, and I want it.

I'm not going to say I'll change my mind about Homebrew in my campaigns, but I feel like I have a better understanding of why others would allow it. Still, I believe at large, the benefits of homebrew don't seem to outweigh the risks of breaking open a system that is already easy enough to break.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic! I hope you enjoyed discussing it with me as well.

[zergling.exe]

Another good point. I can always relate to money being a problem. I lucked out, and got all my materials from a grognard who was like "Eff this, I'm out!" But even with all those books and magazines, I have to say I rarely use them anymore. I just google whatever race, class, or feat I need now. Didn't WoTC pretty much release everything as OGL in 3.5, like give or take a book or magazine that almost never gets used? I'm looking at you, Magic of Incarnum.

No, OGL only applies to the Core 3 (barring some MM monsters or a few specific examples). Unearthed Arcana, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and the Epic Level Handbook. Basically if it's not on this site, it's not OGL.

[P.F.]

So, so far, the best points I've seen (or rather the points that make the most sense to me) are:

1. Not everyone can afford all the splats, so homebrew is the next best option.
2. Homebrew can be used to balance Epic Level campaigns.
3. Because it's cool, and I want it.

I'm not going to say I'll change my mind about Homebrew in my campaigns, but I feel like I have a better understanding of why others would allow it. Still, I believe at large, the benefits of homebrew don't seem to outweigh the risks of breaking open a system that is already easy enough to break.

I think you are perhaps overestimating the fragility of the d20 gaming sysyem?

This is a system which can uphold the weighty facade of houserules and interpretive conventions without which it would collapse in nearly every session I've played. And yet, even with all these structural deficiencies, it still stands.

This is a system which has withstood unrelenting pounding with the Banhammer of Munchkinslaying and yet even my most egregious min/maxing übergamer friends keep coming back to the table.

This is a system which flatly and unironically equates the under-performing Monk with the juggernaut Druid. And yet, people still play both monks and druids.

Is slopping a little homebrew on there really going to break this system?

No, fear of breaking the game I don't think is at issue here.

When I hear objections to homebrew, it's more typically fear of being rendered superfluous.

I've discovered a really cool class which looks underwhelming but has an ability which, when combined with a specific feat and another class feature, let's me do something awesome! How disappointing is it, then, when another player just writes "I can do this awesome thing" on his character sheet, and all the other players just think he's so creative and couldn't care less about the rules I've cleverly exploited.

So maybe I won't allow homebrew rules in my campaign. Maybe, as a DM I don't have time to review and edit all my players homebrew proposals, or to talk through their hurt feelings when I shoot them down(and let's be real, 99% of suggestions for homebrew are terrible). My delight in learning a new way to exploit the rules is greater than my displeasure at having an encounter/campaign utterly wrecked by a player who has discovered an unforseen (and apparently rules-legal) combo.

There are plenty of good reasons not to want to get into rules-writing on our own. But let's not pretend that the system underpinning the myriad published sourcebooks is so delicate that adding our own rules will ruin it. This game has been around a bit too long for that.

[Yahzi]

Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?

I agree. In fact, I restricted my campaign to Core only (and banned Monks to boot), because that's already enough complexity for me.

Although I did do some homebrew... about 100,000 words of it. I only really changed two rules though: XP is tangible, and the amount you need doubles at ever level. All the rest of that homebrew is making sense of the world after you make those two changes.

[Jarmen4u]

-snipped-

Dude, you are projecting really hard.

All you're talking about is bad DM house rules. We're talking about homebrew. That is, custom classes, races, feats, etc. Sorry you've got some personal issues to work out, but this is not the place.