As Editions progress, are homebrews...

[am181d]

The test is going to be how detailed each race and class is. Some house rules are relatively straight forward. Change how a particular feat works. Create a new class. Other house rules are much more challenging: For instance, it takes a lot of work to put together an alternative magic system.

With 4e, it looks like every character will have some type of "spell list". That's a lot of options hardwired in.

For now, I'm happy to believe WotC when they say that it will be *easier* to build whatever character you imagine, but I'm nervous that there'll be a lot of "Paladins always smite" and "Fighters always use shields" and "Warlocks always eat babies" . Easy enough to house rule, unless half the PHB is devoted to smite powers and shield powers and baby eating powers.

Ah well. Fingers crossed!

 

[WhatGravitas]

Personally? Never. I make sure I know what every single thing on my character sheet means for my character, and if I have trouble remembering things, I write them down on a note card.

That's a good solution, but it doesn't fly for everybody. Some simply don't bother to do this, some cannot read their handwriting, some do it wrong, so the DM wants to reference it again.

Well, people who just write things on their sheet without making sure they know what they mean will always have these issues. Nothing bugs me more than having to wait while someone digs through the book looking or a feat they took 8 levels ago, but never bothered to understand.

But this means you also know these people!

But how is it more disruptive to change the name than having to explain the vast differences in spells and classes (since Ravenloft changes MASSIVE things about the paladin class and tons of spells)?

That's different, because you can do that stuff beforehand. Same as with other houserules. And it doesn't crop up for everything - note, I do not claim that will apply for 4E, simply because I don't know if it affects everything - but the more, the higher the chance it clashes with something. It's not a major problem, but probably one, that can be avoided.

Cheers, LT.

 

[The Little Raven]

That's a good solution, but it doesn't fly for everybody. Some simply don't bother to do this, some cannot read their handwriting, some do it wrong, so the DM wants to reference it again.

And you have recognize who is at fault: the player.

I'm sorry if this sounds elitist, but if you can't be bothered to know what your character can do, maybe you shouldn't be playing. I know this sounds like I don't like new players, but that's not true... I love new players, especially ones that apply their brain power to learning the game, instead of asking every single round "What do I roll to attack?"

But this means you also know these people!

Yes, and they're not people I invite to my games. Information retention is a skill that should be imparted onto people during childhood, and if they haven't grasped that skill by the time they're an adult trying to play D&D with me, then they'd better find a group willing to deal with it, because mine won't.

Some people have learning disabilities that make it difficult, and I sympathize, but I really have no desire to give up the precious little gaming time I have to repeat the same things over and over again.

That's different, because you can do that stuff beforehand. Same as with other houserules. And it doesn't crop up for everything - note, I do not claim that will apply for 4E, simply because I don't know if it affects everything - but the more, the higher the chance it clashes with something. It's not a major problem, but probably one, that can be avoided.

Wait... so you can explain all the details that make Ravenloft different beforehand... but why can't you do the same for things in the core you won't use? Why is it easier to explain Ravenloft's paladin to someone beforehand than to explain the existence/lack of Golden Wyvern and what it means?

 

[jeffh]

To answer the original question - slightly easier, since it gives you more pieces to use and recombine. (And for the most part I don't have players who worship every dot and comma of the PH, so the other problems mentioned here are of only minimal relevance to me.)

 

[med stud]

The longer I have GMd, the less I create detailed homebrews. I realized that the players don't care for the wheat production of country A or what king ruled empire B 300 years ago. If dragonborns didn't figure in my adventures before 4e, it was simply because the PCs hadn't met them. Gnomes are still in the MM in 4e so it's not like they are gone from the world.

I have also never used feat descriptions or spell names in game either; no wizard will say "I cast magic missile!" IMC. Thus, noone will say "I'm a Goldern Wyvern Adept!" IMC either.

So, in short, the PCs will be exposed to a culture of dragonborn coming from the South and tieflings from the West. The dragonborn won't be anything new, it's just that they weren't important before and as such I didn't mention them. The tieflings, though, will probably be the foundation of a couple of adventures.

Nothing too hard to handle for my campaign world fluff- wise. Crunch-wise there will be more changes but as I try hard to not define NPCs by describing their mechanics I don't think that will have a large impact on the world as such.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm sorry if this sounds elitist, but if you can't be bothered to know what your character can do, maybe you shouldn't be playing. I know this sounds like I don't like new players, but that's not true... I love new players, especially ones that apply their brain power to learning the game, instead of asking every single round "What do I roll to attack?"


Yes, and they're not people I invite to my games. Information retention is a skill that should be imparted onto people during childhood, and if they haven't grasped that skill by the time they're an adult trying to play D&D with me, then they'd better find a group willing to deal with it, because mine won't.

The point is: I can understand my players. All of them are - as me - students. And should use their brain for more important information. And they're probably much less "into D&D" than I am, for at least two of them, it's just a fun pastime, but doing co-op on a Xbox, playing board games, or just hanging around would suit them equally well. And perhaps something rules lighter would suit some of them better... but it's "our game", if you know what I mean, and usually, it's enjoyable.

And ultimately, I think, that's a different style of play, and how dedicated you are to your game.

Wait... so you can explain all the details that make Ravenloft different beforehand... but why can't you do the same for things in the core you won't use? Why is it easier to explain Ravenloft's paladin to someone beforehand than to explain the existence/lack of Golden Wyvern and what it means?

I have no problem with lack/existence of the Golden Wyvern. What bothers me is that the Golden Wyvern is the moniker used to described a somewhat often referenced rule, meaning I'm forced to use that as my "mental bookmark" or as keyword to remember it/look it up.

And that it clashes with the other implied flavour of the game. Paladin, channelling, wizard, sorcerer, track, cleave, golden wyvern, dodge. Who's the odd man out here?

True, the more technical names do this as well, BUT they are easier to gloss over, because they're generic and somewhat bland, while Golden Wyvern bears very different connotations - as a metaphor: If you mix spices with bland stuff, you'll only taste the spices. If you mix them with pulverized fish, you'll get a very different flavour.

On a closing note: It's odd how messageboards make you look like you're in rage about it - in fact, it bothers me only a bit... but it's sure interesting to discuss the merits of ideas.

Cheers, LT.

 

[resistor]

The point is: I can understand my players. All of them are - as me - students. And should use their brain for more important information. And they're probably much less "into D&D" than I am, for at least two of them, it's just a fun pastime, but doing co-op on a Xbox, playing board games, or just hanging around would suit them equally well. And perhaps something rules lighter would suit some of them better... but it's "our game", if you know what I mean, and usually, it's enjoyable.

And ultimately, I think, that's a different style of play, and how dedicated you are to your game.

My situation is exactly like yours. Couldn't have put it better.

 

[Rel]

Some of the nastiness getting tossed around in this thread is unacceptable. Knock it off.

 

[rkwoodard]

homebrewing--Easier

As the editions progress it becomes easier for me to homebrew.

But the reason is very silly.

As the editions progress the other members of my group read and study the rule books less and less. So, since I have to explain everything anyway, made up stuff is the same as what is in the books to them.

RK

 

[pawsplay]

Starting with the end of support for Greyhawk as the default setting, I've been highly motivated to homebrew everything.