Why Homebrew in 3.5?

[GrayDeath]

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.

That said D&D 3.5 is a very "finicky" system for the lack of a better word, if you're trying to build out a specific concept at a specific power level there's probably a way to do it, but it also probably involves 3-6 classes, 4-10 feats, a handful of spells, and a loose smattering of magic items. When you have so many moving parts interacting to make one concept work, it can often be easier for the player and the DM to just homebrew some stuff they think is fair and use it.

1. Because, for many, homebrew is an enjoyable and time honored part of the D&D experience.
2. Because the same mechanical variety that makes 3.5 interesting for CharOp makes for interesting and modular homebrew. If you can make as interesting level 15 character with a bunch of dips, you can probably make it into an equally-balanced 10 level PRC by assuming entry at 5 and smoothing out the progression.
3. Because homebrew can be an interesting and effective way to accent a setting. Giving a particularly plot-important order of paladins a variant class feature helps make them memorable, for example.
4. Because, in my experience, poorly balanced homebrew is not more frequent (in a proportional sense) than poorly balanced CharOp builds - and for homebrew I can generally insist on prior review before games and provide constructive criticism with less fuss

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.

QFT.


To reiterate:

For me Homebrew in D&D .x has 3 reasons:

1.: I dont want to jump through the ridiculous amount of hoops (and need to be level 10) to paly a certain concept (most of the time this relates to Martial Characters, as with Spells you can do much more earlier^^). Or, as said above, dont have access to whichever splat it is in "originally:

2.: I ahve a cool Idea and just want to try building it myself. Pure creativity for fun.


3.: Attempt to make a more balanced set of classes.
I mean as long as they are powerwise below the Big 3, Homebrew will at most make some classes even mroeredundant, but not endanger the Game Blaance as a whole. SInce I, and many others, mostly aim Homebrew CLasses at T3 level, a full set of say 7 or 8 different Homebrew Classes +Sorcerer+PunceBarbarian can make uo a very well balanced Party with a niche for everybody and without the But my Wizard/Druid/Cleric will deal with it alone" problem.

Aside from the fact that many existing classes do not really do what they aim to do anyway. ^^

[King of Nowhere]

What I really want to understand is:
Why create an entire class or race from scratch in a system already as expansive and rules heavy as 3.5?

What I really want to understand is this:
Why read through 50+ splatbooks, spend days figuring the class/feat/race combos, only to come up with something mildly similar to your concept, that requires a half dozen classes and doesn't work before level 12, when you can just homebrew something that is exactly what you want?

EDIT: seems like a half dozen other people already expressed this sentiment

[King of Nowhere]

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.

The problem with this is not in the homebrewed stuff, but in the whole interaction with substitution levels, alt-classes, and other kind of cheese. So instead of removing the homebrew stuff you should maybe remove the cheese in this case. I'm not sure if it ever happened at my table, but if one player brought me that kind of homebrew-cheese frankenstein hybrid, I'd just stop it with an "it doesn't stack" or other similar ruling.

In fact, one distinct advantage of homebrewing for balance is that you can control exactly what stacks and what doesn't to prevent really broken stuff. Of course you need the players to trust you, but if you do it without malicious intent and have enough system mastery to make it work more often than not, generally you will be trusted.

[Bakkan]

What I really want to understand is this:
Why read through 50+ splatbooks, spend days figuring the class/feat/race combos, only to come up with something mildly similar to your concept, that requires a half dozen classes and doesn't work before level 12, when you can just homebrew something that is exactly what you want?

EDIT: seems like a half dozen other people already expressed this sentiment

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

When I am a player, I don't really care if the other players use homebrew, but I don't think I ever have. When I'm a DM, I will create my own monsters and magic items, but on the whole I prefer to let the system inform my worldbuilding. For example, animating the dead is relatively rare because it can only be accessed at level 5.

[Quertus]

Yes, there is a great deal that can be done with the published material. But there is also a great deal that can't be done with the published materials, else 3rd party sources wouldn't be a thing.

Yes, there is joy in figuring out how to do something by splat diving and creating a Frankenstein of half a dozen (or more!) classes. But there is also joy in creating something beautiful whole-cloth.

Yes, balance in 3e is everywhere. But homebrew allows you to expand the range of balance points in which a specific concept can easily live, thus allowing the players to more readily create a balanced party.

[Knaight]

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

This is a pretty good answer, and it drives at a fundamental divide among RPG players. For some, character creation is half the game, or at least a major minigame with a lot of enjoyment to it. Managing a lot of complex rules, spotting usable patterns in them, diving through source books, all of these are fun.

For others character creation is the tedious work you have to put in up front, and after you've gotten past that hurdle you can actually play the game. Going from the concept in your head to the mechanics in the quickest, easiest, and most intuitive fashion is a good thing, and character creation systems that favor that and have nothing that even resembles a minigame are preferred.

D&D 3.5 can do the second mode to a limited extent if you've got some very specific concepts. It can do the first mode for a great deal more, and it's an amazing system if you enjoy character creation for character creation. If you don't though, homebrew is a decent way to at least approach the second mode instead of dealing with the first.

[Vaern]

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.

Also bear in mind that the DM has the final say in what is or isn't allowed. Saying "Homebrewed content is allowed in my games," doesn't mean "My players can create whatever you want and use it no matter how broken it is." Anything the players create should be submitted for review and approved before use, and any such content is subject to being rejected if a reasonable DM decides that it is broken.

Also bear in mind that the DM has the ability to retcon and redefine abilities on the fly if it is revealed that they were written in a specific way just to break the game in some way. This even happens occasionally in groups that only use published material. Say two classes gain untyped bonuses equal to their wisdom modifier to that armor class like Monk and Ninja. Someone tries stacking them to cheese their AC up - the DM might say, "No, they're essentially the same thing. I'm not going to let it stack with itself."
And let's say, for example, that someone *cough* was to create a divine-flavored prestige class for arcane casters, with Arcane Disciple (Sun) as a prerequisite. Let's say that hypothetically this prestige class had an "improved arcane disciple" feature at level 3 which allows the character to use his primary arcane casting ability score instead of wisdom to determine whether he can cast spells granted by Arcane Disciple and to determine their DC. And then let's say that, hypothetically, this prestige class also gained a "domain mastery" feature at level 6 which states that the character is no longer limited to preparing or casting spells granted by Arcane Disciple once per day.
Hypothetically, the creator and player of this prestige class might attempt to pick up Arcane Disciple (Healing), pointing out that these class features apply to all spells granted by Arcane Disciple and not just those belonging to the Sun domain, as may have been implied when the DM was reviewing the hypothetical class before the start of the hypothetical game.
As the DM in this purely hypothetical case, you have the ability to say, "Um, no. I'm not giving you full access to healing magic as a sorcerer. We're doing rewrites." You then proceed to grab a pen and errata the ability to apply only to the Sun domain.

[Deadline]

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.

Your argument shakes apart at higher optimization levels, not just at higher character levels. But if you spend most of your time in games running from levels 1-6 it's much harder to see.

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?

I don't. I was pointing out that adding or not adding more rules via homebrew has no real impact on balance of the game, because the game is badly balanced even in core. So the argument of "I don't want to add homebrew because balance" isn't a solid argument.

Edit - And to clarify, I'm not saying "homebrew is balanced". Homebrew, just like the various splatbooks, should be reviewed for potential balance impacts it can have on your game. If you assume that a splatbook is balanced just because it is official, I think that is a mistake.

[King of Nowhere]

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

When I am a player, I don't really care if the other players use homebrew, but I don't think I ever have. When I'm a DM, I will create my own monsters and magic items, but on the whole I prefer to let the system inform my worldbuilding. For example, animating the dead is relatively rare because it can only be accessed at level 5.

As a player, I mostly agree with that. I am unlikely to ask for homebrew in character creation. Though I may point out that there are so many manuals and dragon articles and third party sources and a lot of those were written by people with no more system mastery than myself, so the divide between something I made up and something someone else made up is pretty thin. But yes, unlesss I come up with a really crazy concept I generally stick to existing material.

As a DM, I like to introduce homebrew here and there. I mostly do it to introduce mechanics that would not exist, or would not be attainable in my world. If you look at my homebrewed monsters (should be a link in my signature I just added) you may notice that each one of them has abilities that do not exist otherwise. Same if I make homebrewed classes and slap them on some npc. And that stuff, besides venting out my creative impulses, are good for fluff.

Anyway, differences here are mostly about tastes.

[tiercel]

Why homebrew? Well, for one, it’s not, strictly speaking, a choice between a RAW game (is there really even such a thing?) and one that contains homebrew, since homebrew is part of RAW:

The rules for creating your character provide a common ground for players, but you can tweak the rules to make your character unique. Any substantive changes, however, must be approved by the DM.

The examples that follow are in part cosmetic but include changing class and racial features. Sure, there are a lot of published variants of such things that came out after the PHB was published, but there certainly wasn’t an errata later saying “welp, since we published a whole bunch of racial variants and ACFs this page of the PHB no longer holds.”

[ngilop]

SO I read the OP and waite a while while my brain comprehended what was written.


this is the conclusions I came to.

OP states he never uses homebrew. then says how he has houserules. Seems extremely contradictory

OP states he plays strickly RAW. I fail to understand HOW, because RAW is actually unplayable in so many facets of the game its ridiculous.

OP makes may claims that homebrew disrupts the 'balance' of the base game. Has OP even read the books? I mean.. what?

[tedcahill2]

I may have to beg to differ on this point. I'm currently running a campaign with:

1. A Wizard
2. A Ranger
3. A Fighter/Artificer/Barbarian
4. A Truenamer

And they're all representing their roles well. It's one of the most successful games I've run, and I'm doing the whole thing by RAW (including multi-class penalties) except for the House Rules listed in my Registry. I'm not trying to say there can't be a power imbalance between the tiers, but it's a bit severe to claim they simply can't work together. They can, and the game can be fun for all regardless of tier.

Your claim is interesting considering that you clearly recognize the variance in power between tiers based on your own DM Registry.

4.In the interest of balancing game development, and to reflect the level of training it takes to develop "mundane" abilities compared to elite abilities, each tier below tier 1 will receive bonus combat XP from encounters. Players are responsible for remembering to add their own bonus XP to their character sheet.

Tier 2: 10% XP Bonus
Tier 3: 20% XP Bonus
Tier 4: 30% XP Bonus
Tier 5: 40% XP Bonus
Tier 6: 50% XP Bonus

[Alabenson]

I homebrew because their are certain concepts that the existing material in 3.5 either doesn't cover well or requires a hybrid of 3+ classes to realize. Not to mention all the mechanics that were created during 3.5's run that received no or virtually no support after their initial splatbook.

[inexorabletruth]

Your claim is interesting considering that you clearly recognize the variance in power between tiers based on your own DM Registry.

Hello! I'm back because I'm waiting on my games to update with new posts, and I thought I'd check in on my older threads.

I can try to answer some questions aimed at me.

Yes, of course I acknowledge that there are different tiers in the game. I also provided a more in depth description of what I mean by party balance, and invited anyone to give me a better word or phrase for what I am trying to say.

I wouldn't dare try to compare the warbly attempt at balance in 3.5 to the rubber stamped classes in 4E, where everyone has basically the same power level, because everyone is basically the same class refluffed. And I'm not 100% against homebrew. I just don't see why it's necessary to homebrew a race/class combo when it already can be built by RAW.

@ngilop
First of all, are you using blue text to be sarcastic, or because you like the color? I'm going to assume this isn't sarcasm, because I want to validate your questions. So here we go:

OP states he never uses homebrew. then says how he has houserules. Seems extremely contradictory

OP states he plays strickly RAW. I fail to understand HOW, because RAW is actually unplayable in so many facets of the game its ridiculous.

OP makes may claims that homebrew disrupts the 'balance' of the base game. Has OP even read the books? I mean.. what?

1. House rules and homebrew aren't the same thing. And even if they were my house rules aren't an attempt to create a race/class combo from scratch. I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction.
2. I play by RAW, but I openly admit to using house rules. I also concede that there are some classes, feats and skills that can use a little help. I tend to adhere to RAW more strictly than other DMs I have known, though. For instance, I don't allow homebrew races or classes. I don't hand wave mundane equipment, and I enforce multi-classing penalties, among a long list of other things I do that are by RAW. However, by RAW, it is technically impossible to roll a successful Spot check to know if you can see the sun while standing in an open field. I'm not trying to be foolish. I just don't get the need for homebrew race/class combos in D&D 3.5. And even in my farewell post, I conceded that I now have a better understanding for its purpose.
3. Yes, I have read many of the books, but I largely use the splats as reference material. Though I have read for pleasure Players Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Monster Manual 1-3, The Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5, Planar Handbook, Fiend Folio, Magic of Incarnum, Arms and Equipment Guide 3E, and Libris Mortis. They were not all good reads, to be honest. But I'm not sure why I have to defend my resume as a DM here. I feel my original post would be equally valid if I hadn't read any of these books.

@Deadline

I don't. I was pointing out that adding or not adding more rules via homebrew has no real impact on balance of the game, because the game is badly balanced even in core. So the argument of "I don't want to add homebrew because balance" isn't a solid argument.

Edit - And to clarify, I'm not saying "homebrew is balanced". Homebrew, just like the various splatbooks, should be reviewed for potential balance impacts it can have on your game. If you assume that a splatbook is balanced just because it is official, I think that is a mistake.

If it doesn't balance the game, and it doesn't create something that can't already be created in the currently established system, then it seems redundant to me. Maybe I'm missing something in the context. Do you have a solid example of a homebrew that represents something that simply doesn't exist in the currently established system, yet is still playable, and not broken? I'm certainly reasonable enough to yield this point if you have one.

[Heliomance]

If it doesn't balance the game, and it doesn't create something that can't already be created in the currently established system, then it seems redundant to me. Maybe I'm missing something in the context. Do you have a solid example of a homebrew that represents something that simply doesn't exist in the currently established system, yet is still playable, and not broken? I'm certainly reasonable enough to yield this point if you have one.

Falling Star Discipline. A new discipline for Tome of Battle, allowing the existing maneuver mechanic to be applied to ranged combat, and thus boosting mundane archers in the same way ToB boosted mundane melee fighters.

[Pleh]

I just don't see why it's necessary to homebrew a race/class combo when it already can be built by RAW.

Necessity is not a fair criterion of measurement. Nothing in RAW, the game, or anything being discussed is truly necessary.

We play because we want to, not out of any need. We homebrew because we want to, not because we need to.

If we wanted, we could abandon game rules completely and use freeform RPG. There is nothing essential about balance, RAW, or homebrew. There is only the kind of game we want to play.

This is a matter of subjective preferences, never objective facts. Homebrew has objective advantages and objective disadvantages, but it's only a tool that is useful at certain tasks.

[inexorabletruth]

Falling Star Discipline. A new discipline for Tome of Battle, allowing the existing maneuver mechanic to be applied to ranged combat, and thus boosting mundane archers in the same way ToB boosted mundane melee fighters.

Hmmm, based on the commentary I've read (which I'm going by because I'm in no position to play test it right now) I'd say it's been brought through the fire and come out strong. But it looks a looks a lot like a ranged template that can be applied to already existing martial classes. On the one hand, it doesn't really fit into the category of new homebrewed race or class, but it essentially strips the existing classes down to its chassis so thoroughly that it might as well be a new class. It still seems to preserve balance (give or take a point) and makes something original.

You've given me a lot to think about.

@Pleh

Necessity is not a fair criterion of measurement. Nothing in RAW, the game, or anything being discussed is truly necessary.

I have to say, I never like this argument in these types of discussions, but I will always respect them. You're not wrong. The point of the game is to have fun. So you do you. But I've already acknowledged that "because it's cool and I want it" makes sense to me as a reason why other DMs allow homebrew. It's not enough for me though, because I think it's more fun when I, and the players, have to work within the confines of the rules, because it allows players to have faith in the inherited system for the purposed of build, skill checks, campaign environment, and stability. Furthermore, it's a more intellectually stimulating pursuit to me.

Which is, ultimately, the reason why I never like this particular argument. It's non productive in the context of trying to understand the purpose of another form of gameplay. I know I sound like a Homebrew hater, or at least that's how I might be perceived for posting a thread like this. Rather, I'm expressing confusion about the need to reinvent the wheel in D&D 3.5. If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

However, if you're going to stand behind the discussion-proof armor of "because it's cool and I want it" then there is nothing I can learn from you.

[johnbragg]

For me, the answer is that homebrewing has no challenge, or at least a very different kind of challenge than representing a concept within the system as it exists. It essentially turns half of the game, character creation, into a real-life Craft and Diplomacy check. This eliminates the psychological reward I get from comprehending and mastering the system.

When I am a player, I don't really care if the other players use homebrew, but I don't think I ever have. When I'm a DM, I will create my own monsters and magic items, but on the whole I prefer to let the system inform my worldbuilding. For example, animating the dead is relatively rare because it can only be accessed at level 5.

Do you see, though, that what you're doing is a real-life Knowledge: Splatbooks skill check?

Let's talk about Animate Dead at CL 5. That's where it is for PHB clerics. But if I want to play a spooooky necromancer--I can't do that until level 8 in the published class that has NECROMANCER in the name. Meanwhile my Wizard buddy can do it at level 7.

I'm sure that there's some early-entry splatbook cheese that would let you move Animate Dead down a level, or some way around it.

Or you could just take the published DN class, rewrite it and fix it the way your table wants it. "But that's homebrewing!" Yeah, it is.

[Heliomance]

If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

What are your thoughts on iron-shod wooden spoked wheels vs pneumatic tyres?

[Bakkan]

Do you see, though, that what you're doing is a real-life Knowledge: Splatbooks skill check?

Sure. I like making Knowledge: Splatbooks checks, and it's satisfying to me when I succeed.

Let's talk about Animate Dead at CL 5. That's where it is for PHB clerics. But if I want to play a spooooky necromancer--I can't do that until level 8 in the published class that has NECROMANCER in the name. Meanwhile my Wizard buddy can do it at level 7.

Class names have no relation to their use in a build or a game, at least when I build or play. The Dread Necromancer, like every class, is a collection of abilities tiered by level, sometimes with associated RP requirements, and whether or not I use them is determined by if they help me get the abilities I want at the power level I'm aiming for and if the RP requirements make sense for the character.

I'm sure that there's some early-entry splatbook cheese that would let you move Animate Dead down a level, or some way around it.

And figuring out such a combination of abilities causes an almost euphoric sensation, even if I don't wind up ever using it in a game. The psychological "high" from discovering something new in an external system is very different than the one you get from a creative act. It's similar to what I do in my day job as a mathematician, in that proving a new theorem, no matter how small, makes me feel good all day.

Or you could just take the published DN class, rewrite it and fix it the way your table wants it. "But that's homebrewing!" Yeah, it is.

And I would never criticize another player at my table for doing so. I would not do it, since it provides me far less satisfaction than working within the system.

A fundamental difference between the two viewpoints, as Knaight pointed out well, is how character creation is viewed. One type of player sees it as a means to an end, something to get through to get to the real game. I am of the second type, and I take at least half my satisfaction out of a typical game by finding the best combination of classes, feats, etc. to realize a concept at the game's power and character level. Shortcutting that part of the experience by homebrewing up a class that does exactly what you want strikes me as being like playing Dark Souls in God Mode: A lot of fun for a lot of people, but not at all for me.

[inexorabletruth]

Falling Star Discipline. A new discipline for Tome of Battle, allowing the existing maneuver mechanic to be applied to ranged combat, and thus boosting mundane archers in the same way ToB boosted mundane melee fighters.

About an hour later.

Ok, after a quick cup of coffee, my brain is already teeming with questions, which arguably may derail my own thread, so, if it goes that way, we can approach this in the homebrew thread later, to respect the rules of the Playground.

First of all, the build looks like an attempt to grant archers magic arrows at Level 1 more than an attempt to emulate Tome of Battle, which (although it is an awesome book) is an attempt to give melee classes magic weapons at Level 1. And I take issue with giving ranged fighters nicer things than they already have at low levels.

Here's why:

1. Ammo, especially MW ammo is cheap.
2. Special Materials can create magic-like effects at level 1 and fits within an archers budget at level one. Monks can even afford a MW shuriken or two at level one by RAW.
3. Adding spell-like effects to ranged weapons at conceivably low levels is already possible by RAW, especially if you add Arms and Equipment Guide to the mix (yes I know it's 3E, but I've already defended why 3E and 3.5 blend nicely enough).
4. Arcane Archer (though I will admit it is unfair that only Elves and Half-Elves get this even when though their favored class doesn't have anything to do with arrows) already allows you to do this and handles it well enough to accomplish the goal of the homebrew.

Tomb of Battle is an attempt to give nice things to the meat shields who have high taxes for weapons, armor, feats, and skills. They are constantly taking a beating so the archer or blaster can stand safely in the back. A tank's max dex penalties from armor can be an expensive thing to overcome, but an archer's lack of initial DPS can easily be circumvented with judicious application of WBL.

In short, I wouldn't allow this in a campaign (without further explaination of why it is crucial to build it that way) I ran, because it seems mostly redundant. In the contextual crunch of specifically Tomb of Battle, it seems balanced and reasonable. However, characters are rarely built using only one book, unless the DM wills it so. Now, if I was running a campaign and said "We're only using Tome of Battle for class selection" and a player presented it to me, I must concede that I would certainly allow it.

[Hecuba]

[...]it allows players to have faith in the inherited system for the purposed of build, skill checks, campaign environment, and stability. Furthermore, it's a more intellectually stimulating pursuit to me.

I find creating and assessing homebrew to be an intellectually stimulating activity as well. I understand you may not, but please do consider that the process itself is seen as desirable to many who engage in it.

Moreover, I don't generally support using any homebrew you in which you don't have the kind of "faith" that you describe. "Faith" is also a good word to underline what you should not do here: specifically, you should not take the balance and soundness of homebrew on faith. You should assess it deliberately and rationally. (I would also suggest you do the same for 1st party material - otherwise you might end up with a party of with a Fighter, an Archivist, a Truenamer, and a Spell-to-Power Erudite and not see a train wreck coming).

If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

Well, to start, its worth acknowledging you can get jet engines and shiny square blocks with CharOp too.
But anyhow, here are several situations where homebrew can represent a superior tool to CharOp builds:

• The character you want, while possible to build in 3.5 at some arbitrary level, would require a contrived and clunky build. This is less of an issue for short campaigns starting at an arbitrary level - you can often manage to massage into something close enough and playable if you know you the campaign will run from (say) levels 12 to 14.
  But if you expect to start the character at 1 and level it to 20, a build that is clunky to play at certain levels can be annoying - both because it is finicky to play and because it can break immersion.
• You are playing a campaign that, to some degree, integrates the class-based structure into the setting. D&D 3.5 is usually played as an almost-classless game at this point, but it does support class-based aesthetics fairly well if you want to integrate them into your world-building. For such situations, light homebrew (like the example I gave earlier in the thread) can be a good way to accommodate a particular idea and integrate it into the setting.
• To borrow your metaphor, some games aim for shiny square blocks or jet engines instead of wheels. If you are playing a game that is intentionally running tier 5, your options for managing an arcane-themed caster are significantly more limited than they are for 3.5 as a whole. If you want a tier 2 martial character, you are likewise going to face some difficulty. There are some ways to manage it, but the options are more sparse. Homebrew lets you fill these gaps with greater precision. It also lets you do it with less hand-waving and re-fluffing.

In short, I wouldn't allow this in a campaign (without further explaination of why it is crucial to build it that way) I ran, because it seems mostly redundant. In the contextual crunch of specifically Tomb of Battle, it seems balanced and reasonable. However, characters are rarely built using only one book, unless the DM wills it so. Now, if I was running a campaign and said "We're only using Tome of Battle for class selection" and a player presented it to me, I must concede that I would certainly allow it.

What if someone happens to simply like the mechanical feel of playing an initiator (having maneuver cards for your crusader can be fun in and of itself) and wants to do that while playing an archer?

[ComaVision]

My problem with making an archery character in 3.5 is that it is nearly impossible to do effectively unless you have extensive system mastery. It's also a very popular archetype, and often something that new players gravitate to.

My solutions as a DM are:

1. Let them try to do it anyway and probably get frustrated over their inability to contribute meaningfully.
2. Give them all the information they need to make it effective, knowing that without context and experience this is will probably overwhelm them.
3. Disallow new players from playing archery characters.
4. Allow some sort of homebrew or houserule solutions that make archery harder to mess up.

In my opinion, the 4th option is best for integrating new players. Tome of Battle's greatest strength, asides from giving mundane characters interesting choices, is that it's really hard to mess up. Picking maneuvers at random will give you an acceptable character.

(It may be worth noting that I also don't like "balancing" characters by showing favoritism in treasure/wealth. I think any option/boon I give to one player should be available to all the players in my game(s).)

[inexorabletruth]

My problem with making an archery character in 3.5 is that it is nearly impossible to do effectively unless you have extensive system mastery. It's also a very popular archetype, and often something that new players gravitate to.

Hmm. In all sincerity, I don't know why that would be your experience. Put your best stat in DEX, take Point Blank Shot and possibly Rapid Reload (depending on your BAB) if you have room for another feat. (I'm assuming we're discussing level 1 because you are talking about introducing the game to new players.) All of this can be found in the PHB. For money saving options, but some ranks in Craft, and to avoid AoOs, rank up Tumble. Stay in the back, launch MW arrows, and if someone bursts through the line, roll a Tumble check DC 15 by RAW to escape and shoot without provoking AoO. The hardest part about a ranged fighter is the bookkeeping caused from losing arrows, finding rations, casting spells, and stating animal companions. I usually recommend to my new players that they pick Ranger as their starter character, because of the gradual nature in which it introduces concepts like combat, skill checks, animal companions, and spell casting.

(It may be worth noting that I also don't like "balancing" characters by showing favoritism in treasure/wealth. I think any option/boon I give to one player should be available to all the players in my game(s).)

I never suggested this, in case that is the misunderstanding. I grant my players starting gold by RAW, or WBL by RAW in most cases. Although there are some campaigns I run where this doesn't make sense for the story setting or character background, at which point I may have to adjudicate.

@Hecuba

I find creating and assessing homebrew to be an intellectually stimulating activity as well. I understand you may not, but please do consider that the process itself is seen as desirable to many who engage in it.

I agree completely... in fact the post you are quoting was meant to emphasize that point and clearly define that this specific point is in a weird way, unhelpful. Anything that makes the gameplay fun for you and the group in D&D is acceptable. And I'm not trying to tell people how to have fun. The original point of the thread was to understand why (aside from the fact that the creator just wants to) someone would create a from scratch homebrew or allow it in a campaign, aside from the fact that "It's fun, and I want to do it." The subtext is, I would like to see some convincing arguments in the event that I may want to include Homebrew race/class combos in my campaigns assuming I saw some compelling arguments for the case. The fact that I'm not sold on the necessity for Homebrew in a game does nothing for or against how other people would play the game, and I sincerely hope that I have not communicated the contrary.

What if someone happens to simply like the mechanical feel of playing an initiator (having maneuver cards for your crusader can be fun in and of itself) and wants to do that while playing an archer?

Hmm. I would have some questions for the player, to test their resolve. For instance, I would recommend the alternate build concepts I presented earlier in this thread, then I would simply recommend they fluff the stances, as I often have in campaigns in the past. If they still held strong to their conviction, I would present the concept to the group, and take a consensus. Based on their input I would adjudicate. Assuming it passes all that rigor, I must confess I would allow it. Which would be, honestly, an absolute first for me.

Also, I would want to implement the condition that the Homebrew will be banned if it opens up a dialog of, "Hey, if she gets that thing, why can't I have this thing?" The games I make come with enough paperwork without adding more reading assignments and midweek play tests.

[King of Nowhere]

One more reason to homebrew that hasn't really been brought out here is the case of a DM that wants to surprise the players. My DM is often frustrated that he will go out of his way to give exotic descriptions to various creatures to make them sound exotic, mysterious and /or dangerous, and his more experienced players will be all "oh, that's just a ______, CR _____. Nothing special. [Possibly following with a list of stats]". It breaks immersion for him. It also breaks realism, because our characters are not supposed to know all that stuff, and yet they somehow act as if they did.
So he throws the occasional homebrewed monster at us, to keep us guessing.
Ufortunately for him, most of his homebrewed monsters ended up killed before making a single attack roll, because we got some nice crowd control in the group and the DM is unlucky with saving throws. But still, the reason for throwing such monsters at the party remains. In fact, it grows with growing system mastery of the party. If you want to throw out something mysterious that the players won't be able to identify immediately, homebrewing can do it. Anything else is just an opposed system mastery check with the players.

[Alabenson]

And figuring out such a combination of abilities causes an almost euphoric sensation, even if I don't wind up ever using it in a game. The psychological "high" from discovering something new in an external system is very different than the one you get from a creative act. It's similar to what I do in my day job as a mathematician, in that proving a new theorem, no matter how small, makes me feel good all day.

And I would never criticize another player at my table for doing so. I would not do it, since it provides me far less satisfaction than working within the system.

The key point here, and to your credit you do acknowledge it, is that while you take immense pleasure in character creation and system mastery not all players feel this way. Many of the players I've played with viewed character creation as a necessary evil at best, so anything that could be done to streamline the process was greatly appreciated.

[inexorabletruth]

In fact, it grows with growing system mastery of the party. If you want to throw out something mysterious that the players won't be able to identify immediately, homebrewing can do it. Anything else is just an opposed system mastery check with the players.

I can see why this is a common solution. My personal tactic is to:

1. Start with some ground rules about what counts as common knowledge.
2. Agree that meta-knowledge is sternly discouraged.
3. Adjudicate knowledge checks for what would not be commonly known monsters (DC = 10+HD by RAW), especially if a character attempts to use meta knowledge in combat.
4. Run rampant with templates.

Still, when Homebrewing a world, Homebrew monsters (especially for key enforcers and BBEGs) probably make a lot more sense. I'm not as likely to encounter that, because I run in official settings, but that's just because I love the lore.

[Urudin]

snip

To be honest, as a player, after a lot of years playing D&D, i'd rather have homebrewed monster than one i have fought hundreds of times/frankenstein template-made-monster.
And as a DM, i do not understand how you set up rules about what counts as common knowledge. When does it start? When does it ends? What logic is in that? In my personal view as both player and dungeon master, you cannot play without meta-knowledge in those parts of play.

[inexorabletruth]

And as a DM, i do not understand how you set up rules about what counts as common knowledge. When does it start? When does it ends? What logic is in that? In my personal view as both player and dungeon master, you cannot play without meta-knowledge in those parts of play.

Those are the exact questions that get addressed before the start of the game. This is especially true when the players are going to build themed characters in your setting. It won't due for a Ranger to have Favored Enemy: Goblin in setting where goblins don't exist on this plane, or are in some other way extremely rare.

And it won't due to have a zombie slaying Paladin in a world where Undead simply doesn't exist.

To me, it makes good sense to discuss with your players the kind of environment they will be playing in. Most of my campaigns operate under the assumption that all base races, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, kobolds, and troglodytes are common knowledge. More undead campaigns will replace this with vampires, zombies, mummies, wights, allips, and ghosts.

There are other situations where a creature may be common knowledge (like a member of the Fey, per se) but knowing how to kill it is not so common. I believe Cold Iron is the weapon of choice versus a Verdant Prince, but a character won't know that unless they roll the appropriate knowledge check to benefit from that insight.

But, as I said, all of this is discussed before the game starts. It's on the player to play true to their character, and on the DM to adjudicate fairly. But all this is a bit off-topic.

I would like to add that, I have used Homebrewed monsters before in my early campaigns. It wasn't my taste, but I can see why it's prevalently used as a DM. I have, over the years, gotten a lot of praise for presenting interesting monsters and gripping encounters, even though I rip straight from the pages.

Check this link. It is, hands down, my favorite link for finding cool monsters that already exist in the source material. The admins work within WoTC guidelines, so there is nothing on there that can't be shared.

[Quertus]

Necessity is not a fair criterion of measurement. Nothing in RAW, the game, or anything being discussed is truly necessary.

We play because we want to, not out of any need. We homebrew because we want to, not because we need to.

If we wanted, we could abandon game rules completely and use freeform RPG. There is nothing essential about balance, RAW, or homebrew. There is only the kind of game we want to play.

This is a matter of subjective preferences, never objective facts. Homebrew has objective advantages and objective disadvantages, but it's only a tool that is useful at certain tasks.

+1 this.

@Pleh

I have to say, I never like this argument in these types of discussions, but I will always respect them. You're not wrong. The point of the game is to have fun. So you do you. But I've already acknowledged that "because it's cool and I want it" makes sense to me as a reason why other DMs allow homebrew. It's not enough for me though, because I think it's more fun when I, and the players, have to work within the confines of the rules, because it allows players to have faith in the inherited system for the purposed of build, skill checks, campaign environment, and stability. Furthermore, it's a more intellectually stimulating pursuit to me.

Which is, ultimately, the reason why I never like this particular argument. It's non productive in the context of trying to understand the purpose of another form of gameplay. I know I sound like a Homebrew hater, or at least that's how I might be perceived for posting a thread like this. Rather, I'm expressing confusion about the need to reinvent the wheel in D&D 3.5. If I'm wrong, and Homebrew doesn't reinvent the wheel, or replace the wheel with jet engines or really shiny square blocks (overpowered/broken Homebrews), then I'm willing to attempt to understand your point of view.

However, if you're going to stand behind the discussion-proof armor of "because it's cool and I want it" then there is nothing I can learn from you.

Allow me to suggest Angry's "8 Aesthetics of Play" as required reading on this topic. What you think is more fun is irrelevant to what your players find more fun. People who have different sources of fun can easily talk past each other. But what you need to learn from them is, "why homebrew? Because it's fun! (and, possibly, because splat diving isn't)". So, yes, there absolutely is something for you to learn. Have you learned it yet, or do I need to keep babbling?

Now, I personally enjoy some level of "what can I build with the rules I have" - Heck, I even enjoy the "how can I build a successful party with this random assortment of characters" minigame. But I much more enjoy, "what my character did has meaning, and through their actions I accomplish the creation of this new homebrew". Even if that homebrew is strictly inferior to some Frankenstein of RAW.

Know your players. What do they find fun? Use that to determine what you should consider including in your games.

I find creating and assessing homebrew to be an intellectually stimulating activity as well. I understand you may not, but please do consider that the process itself is seen as desirable to many who engage in it.

• The character you want, while possible to build in 3.5 at some arbitrary level, would require a contrived and clunky build. This is less of an issue for short campaigns starting at an arbitrary level - you can often manage to massage into something close enough and playable if you know you the campaign will run from (say) levels 12 to 14.
  But if you expect to start the character at 1 and level it to 20, a build that is clunky to play at certain levels can be annoying - both because it is finicky to play and because it can break immersion.
  
• To borrow your metaphor, some games aim for shiny square blocks or jet engines instead of wheels. If you are playing a game that is intentionally running tier 5, your options for managing an arcane-themed caster are significantly more limited than they are for 3.5 as a whole. If you want a tier 2 martial character, you are likewise going to face some difficulty. There are some ways to manage it, but the options are more sparse. Homebrew lets you fill these gaps with greater precision. It also lets you do it with less hand-waving and re-fluffing.

If I summarized these bits as intellectual stimulation, beauty/elegance, and game balance, would I be missing any substantial concepts?

Hmm. In all sincerity, I don't know why that would be your experience. Put your best stat in DEX, take Point Blank Shot and possibly Rapid Reload (depending on your BAB) if you have room for another feat. (I'm assuming we're discussing level 1 because you are talking about introducing the game to new players.) All of this can be found in the PHB. For money saving options, but some ranks in Craft, and to avoid AoOs, rank up Tumble. Stay in the back, launch MW arrows, and if someone bursts through the line, roll a Tumble check DC 15 by RAW to escape and shoot without provoking AoO. The hardest part about a ranged fighter is the bookkeeping caused from losing arrows, finding rations, casting spells, and stating animal companions. I usually recommend to my new players that they pick Ranger as their starter character, because of the gradual nature in which it introduces concepts like combat, skill checks, animal companions, and spell casting.

IME, the most successful archers included one who went crazy with race and templates and used the party Cleric to buff their BAB up to appropriate levels, and a Druid / Arcane Archer. Oh, and some dark whisper gnome Rogues with massive SA damage and infusions or essentia or something to beat tremor sense, and a Psion who mind switched for a great body. And the guy who ran on luck with a Bow of the Solars. And a girl who... ran on luck at guessing squats and hitting invisible creatures. And the guy who made his own homebrew. And the guy who splat dove to build some archery monster I never did completely understand. The invisible pixie, the sail burner, and guy who never let anything get near him technically had long archery careers, but I wouldn't call any of them particularly successful.

So, um, there's a lot of ways to skin that cat, IME. But, without significant system mastery, these builds are hard to not wind up as the least valuable player - and this from the guy whose party has Fighter and Monk MVPs!