As Editions progress, are homebrews...

[Fifth Element]

This is the only thing about 4E which really pisses me off.

Seems to me the 3E PHB had Greyhawk deities and some spells named after Greyhawk mages. I never had any trouble ripping those out or calling them something different, and I suspect you really won't have much trouble in 4E doing the same.

The much-asserted fear that all feats and abilities will have setting-specific names is unfounded. Most things will apparently still have mundane descriptive names, with only a few having colourful names, like "Robilar's Gambit".

What?

 

[Doug McCrae]

17th level monk is called Grandmaster of Flowers. What am I supposed to do if there's no flowers in my setting? Likewise seasons and compass points.

What if I think the spell names ESP, polymorph other, telekinesis, teleport and infravision are wholly inappropriate for medieval fantasy? What if I think monster summoning IV sounds more like a movie than a spell?

What if I don't think doppleganger, a word first used in English in the 19th century is right for my setting? What if I think ixitxachitl is unpronounceable? Or that pseudo-dragon doesn't sound medieval?

What if I don't want non-humans as PCs? Or think that druids should have to make blood sacrifices to their vile gods? Or want wizards to have healing magic? Or don't want PCs capable of casting spells?

 

[The Little Raven]

Calling "Golden Wyvern" "Battle Knowledge" takes about 2 seconds the first time and 45 seconds re-explaining or looking up Golden Wyvern every time thereafter.

And explaining that the PHB races are default D&D, but not used in this setting because they don't fit, and there's this whole other list of races takes plenty of time as well.

By this explanation you've given, Dark Sun and other settings must have massive trouble, since you have to explain how different the normal PHB races are in the setting, as well as the lack of PHB races (gnomes and half-orcs), then add in all the new ones. And that doesn't even get into the massive changes to classes.

And again, I fail to see how renaming a feat is more difficult than cutting out/bringing in races/classes.

 

[Abstraction]

Calling "Bigby's Clenched Fist" just "Clenched Fist" or "XXXX's Clenched Fist" takes about 2 seconds the first time and 0 seconds thereafter.

Calling "Golden Wyvern" "Battle Knowledge" takes about 2 seconds the first time and 45 seconds re-explaining or looking up Golden Wyvern every time thereafter.

Do you own a ballpoint pen? You are allowed to write in the books you buy. Okay. Done. Has nothing to do with homebrewing. Please keep the whining about how WOTC decides to name fluff items in the ten other threads dedicated to that topic.

 

[Jackelope King]

About all I can say is that the more flexible the character creation system is, the easier it is for me to homebrew in general. Why? Because generally, when I homebrew a D&D setting, I'm not going to be keeping to anything vaguely Tolkein-esque or Gygaxian. I've done the many variants on Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms that are all sort of that vaguely off-white brand of high fantasy (including ones I came up with myself). They're fine, but I want something different. I'm a little tired of elves as the nimble woodsmen whose empire fell long ago and the dwarves who live in seclusion under the mountains who are great smiths and brewers and the humans who are everyone else.

I'm much more interested in something like a stalled Age of Reason where most of the known world lies in ruin and only colonists from two of the great empires and natives who were once their subjects (and now are their peers) survive, where psionics is dominant as an almost-science and magic (via spirit pacts) is the strange, occult, and forbidden dark art. I want a game with magic wielded almost exclusively by noble houses who band together to support their city-state and defend against the horrors which dwell on the countless islands in the Infinite Sea, where hunting dragons for their blood to catalyze the steam that powers airships, steam cannons, and caminadors (warforged), while the church sends its mysterious, faceless assassins to safeguard humankind from the shadows.

Later editions have allowed me greater freedom for this sort of gameplay than older editions did, so I'd have to say that as the editions have come and gone, newer editions tend to enable me to homebrew games more to my tastes.

 

[BryonD]

And explaining that the PHB races are default D&D, but not used in this setting because they don't fit, and there's this whole other list of races takes plenty of time as well.

No, you are back to about 2 seconds.

And again, I fail to see how renaming a feat is more difficult than cutting out/bringing in races/classes.

What you are failing to see is that renaming a feat is not the issue. The issue is effective communication with players and keeping the actual flavor text of the world unblurred.
If the name of the feat was "shape spell" then re-naming it would be the only issue and there would be zero problem. The simple re-naming has nothing to do with it.

 

[TerraDave]

Each adition has been a little different...for example, 3rd edition opened the door to churning out campaing specific feats and prcs, and the domain system worked pretty well for religion (and was more workable then the ambitious specialty priest system of 2nd edition). It was fun for a while (and cool when it actually got into play). But it was so easy...we got flooded with it.

For 4th edition, I will probably do less of that (though who knows). In some ways, I see the changes helping things: more flexible cosmology, more flexible alignment, paladin changed to a more general holy warrior type....clearer roles for pcs and monsters...but there is a lot we don't know.

Yes, some of the flavour has been a drag. But it seems to be a small part (at least the names) of the overall package. And from my own experience, the big lesson is that the DM really has a lot of control, including on flavour. How you names things, describe things, what is encountered, the twist you put on things, can be very effective, and it really is up to you.

Plus players often don't even notice things you (or other messageboard posters) may find terribly inconsistent, illogical, ill-fitting, or fitting into the "bad wrong fun" catagory. The "how things must work" arguments and advice you may see--at least at the broad world and campaing level--probably don't matter that much, except to the extent that they effect your own experience as a DM. They will normally also go along with "crunch" level decisions (you decide no dragon-blood) as long as they have plenty of other options and don't feel you are trying to "get them".

What was the point of all this...edition doesn't matter as much as just doing what you want, and having the confidence to get away with it.

 

[BryonD]

Do you own a ballpoint pen? You are allowed to write in the books you buy. Okay. Done. Has nothing to do with homebrewing.

Wrong. It has everything to do with homebrewing when I have several players with their own books and more than one home brew setting going on.

Besides, see my prior post.

Please keep the whining about how WOTC decides to name fluff items in the ten other threads dedicated to that topic.

No thank you. I believe I will continue to state my reasoned issues with the negative impact of forced fluff on homebrewing in the homebrewing thread.

 

[The Little Raven]

No, you are back to about 2 seconds.

So, telling someone that "Golden Wyvern Adept" is called "Spell Shaper" takes more time than telling someone that "Elves" are called "Sidhelien" or that gnomes don't exist in this world?

But how does it speed things up when you have to explain what a "Mul" is, or why elves are completely different than the description given in the PHB?

What you are failing to see is that renaming a feat is not the issue. The issue is effective communication with players and keeping the actual flavor text of the world unblurred.

So, you're incapable of effectively communicating "These wizard traditions don't exist in my world, and a number of feats have different names?" You want Wizards to write things to make up for your ability to effectively communicate? Incapable of writing up a little campaign world primer, since you're deviating from the core material so much anyhow?

If the name of the feat was "shape spell" then re-naming it would be the only issue and there would be zero problem. The simple re-naming has nothing to do with it.

The only problem you present with the feat is the name... you have no problem with it's effector it's place in your work, you simply have a problem with "Golden Wyvern Adept." You even admit that if it was called something else this problem wouldn't exist.

So, yes, simple re-naming has everything to do with it.

 

[Abstraction]

Question: I was just wondering... as editions progress, are you finding it more difficult to create your own settings and forge your own path, or have the new editions been making it easier to come up with your own content?

Answer: I don't like some feat names in 4E

Ergo, whining