D&D 5E Does your group allow homebrew or 3PP material?

[Henry]

I just want to chime in a moment.

I think there is a gigantic disconnect going on here. Changing rules around and making rulings when the rules aren't clear is not the same as allowing 3PP/fan made material. You can create house based rulings and still stay with in the official framework of current D&D.

As others have said, the only difference between house rules and homebrew is matter of degree. That paraphrasing of Mearls' I couldn't find was to the effect of, "The secret for DMs is that they don't really need us." (speaking of the designers.) And the only difference between a Dungeon Master and a 3rd Party Publisher is the 3PP is a DM who is dissatisfied enough with existing material to make his own. And the only difference between the 3PP and a 1st Party Publisher is he's a 3PP who owns a brand and maybe a few more resources to playtest.

These days, I seriously doubt any one option is playtested more than a dozen hours in-house. There's just not personnel and money to do it. So just think - the main thing that separates a class option from Wolfgang Baur's Southland Heroes from a Battle Rager from SCAG - is a brand label.

 

[Henry]

In other news, I thew in a few of those necromancy spells from En5ider into tonight's treasure haul. The party wizard necromancer was smiling and giggling like a schoolgirl. However, to be honest, I'm more concerned the Staff of Fire and wand of Polymorph i gave them will be more unbalancing than the new spells.

 

[Lylandra]

Not exactly D&D, since we're still in Pathfinder territory, but yes, we usually allow non-WotC/Paizo stuff. Since we are currently only 2 players + 1 DM, homebrew options are what give us an easier time to handle 2P situations without the need of an NPC army to back them up every time (some of them include the expanded abilities for saving throws which were used for 4e and we generally allow for more skillpoints per character, use average HP and sometimes effects that are close to Weapons of Legacy stuff)

However, if a player wants to use a 3PP class/power/feat it has to be reviewed by the DM and the other player. This is mainly due to the fact that we often play Gestalt and things can get messy when singleclass 3PP options add up with other options that were never meant to work together (i.e. dispelling strike and dispelling stun) and we know how frustrating a situation can be were a player has found a one trick loophole to single handedly destroy all encounters (or... as a party. We managed to kill Orcus in 4e in 3 rounds while he had been constantly stunned/disabled etc. because of that unbalanced pre-errata Orbizard and a clever Rogue. Wasn't too much fun for the DM). I also tend to review psionic powers since some of the augments don't fit well into the PF design (mostly strong long time buff augments which let stuff like "psionic divine power" be active for hours)

Edit: For an example on what "homebrew" we're using... most times we're designing around class features thar makes little sense for the character we're trying to play where we also cannot find an appropriate archetype. My bardbuckler for our new Zeitgeist PF party will be all focussed on dancing to an extent that I thought about making her one of the dervishes. However, since she's also a scholar and was raised to be an inspiring leader one day, sacrificing everything else from my class to focus on stuff that makes me a better (even OP) Swashbuckler wouldn't make too much sense. However, versatile performance basically forces one to pick up 6 different performances to make the best use of it which wouldn't fit my character (who'd use 2-3 performance types at max) at all. So we redesigned VP to add an option that one may take +2 on the corresponding skills instead of having to focus on a new performance.

 

[CapnZapp]

because the claim being tested by the poll was not worded appropriately to mean what we've later been told that it was intended to mean.

Thank you

 

[CapnZapp]

CapnZapp, first I apologize because I feel you may have addressed this elsewhere in this thread but I couldn't find it. Second, I hope this doesn't come off as judgmental, I'm just trying to understand your position because I respect your opinion. Now, why don't you allow players to introduce 3pp or homebrew content? Is it:

1) at time issue - you don't have time to vet it or modify it with the player?
2) a social issue - you aren't willing to prevent abuse? Ex.: if something is unbalanced you don't feel like you can work with the group to modify it to make it balanced
3) You don't like saying no? i.e. say it once (no homebrew or 3pp content) so you don't have to say it every time your players want to add something.
4) Group dynamics? i.e. you play and adversarial game where the players are trying to "beat" the DM and this will always lead them to submitting options to abuse the rules.
5) something else?

Personally the groups I play with I work cooperatively with to produce HB content. If I make a change on the DM side (other than making monsers, items, locations, etc.) I discuss it with them and we usually try it out. If we don't like it, we go back. I treat player content the same way.

Thank you and no offense taken.

5a) one important reason is that most if not all of my players are themselves (at least currently) well on the "homebrew adds more headaches than it's worth" side of the fence. In other words, they aren't pushing for homebrew solutions. Of course, this is at least partly due to the edition being rather new. If they are asked to make a new (4th?) character and WotC still haven't made more options available, perhaps they'll start asking for tweaks more.

5b) I find that I like the idea of running D&D "as is". I see a value in finding out whether the RAW classes can best challenges and complete adventures. Of course, now that I see how they run roughshod over the official content this reason is fading. On the other hand, if anything, I would want options that reduce PC power, not increase it. (We all still like options and flexibility, so any such solution would not include turning multiclassing and feats back off)

Do note that my reluctance is strictly for "player-initiated" homebrew. For instance, I had my Monk player find a headband that essentially gave him access to monk features four levels higher once a day. That is a homebrew item that directly affects classes. But the crucial difference is that it isn't something the player can count on, it's not something he can plan for when charbuilding.

Perhaps the most egregious case is if I let you know you would find a Gauntlet of Ogre Power in the end of the first dungeon you delve into, already before you create your character. This would then allow you to create a greatweapon strength-based build with Strength 8. You would certainly do alright using a finesse weapon up until you reach the bottom of that dungeon. This is perhaps the clearest example of what I don't want, and it doesn't even involve any homebrew or 3PP at all.

5c) you forgot "basic distrust of 3PP borne out of the 3E era"

Then add a pinch of 3) and there you have it!

 

[CapnZapp]

Your profile isn't private.
You have been here every day this month, posting over 240 times during that period, an average of 7 1/2 posts each day.

"Don't have time." Whatever you say...

In your eagerness to make us like 3PP now you're going into stalker mode.

Please don't go there. Winning this argument can't be that important.

 

[dracomilan]

I'm the author of a 3PP campaign setting for 5e, Alfeimur. So of course I allow 3PP content.
I started playing in 1991, when there was no internet around. So of course I'm all for homebrew.


TLDR; voted yes

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Winning this argument can't be that important.

I don't think Jester David is trying to win an argument, so much as point out to someone that "I don't have time" is often an inaccurate thing people say when the truth is that they have placed whatever activity they "don't have time" for at such a low priority compared to other things in their life that they do not realize they do have the time, they just are choosing to use it for something other than that activity.

So when someone says "I want X, but I don't have time to make it myself" it is possible that it would be more accurate were they to say "I want X, but not badly enough that I'd spend my time making it."

And maybe, just maybe, if a person realizes that they do have time but they just don't want a thing enough to spend their time on it, they will be more satisfied about the circumstances of not having that thing.

 

[wedgeski]

I play in a group whose DM doesn't allow anything except core (although he was persuaded to allow the UA Ranger, much to my relief!), and I haven't yet found any reason to disallow 3PP material. My next campaign will probably have Mercer's Gunslinger, for example.

I don't know how I'd feel if I ever DM'd a player who was arriving game after game with PDF's from DMSG. I have seen first hand the simmering trouble that badly-designed classes can foment in a group, and I would feel obliged to review any new mechanics. If I was being asked to do that a lot, I would soon lose patience with it.

Also, and I haven't read the whole thread her so I apologize for any repetition, there is a distinction between "Homebrew" and "3PP" that the OP's question lacks. I *homebrew* all the time. Even when running published adventures, I truly feel ownership of the game only if I'm adding ideas inspired by the text. The starting point for any new game is, "Do I have the time to homebrew this 100%?". Only when the answer to that is "No" do I go in search of published material. This is creatively very different from "homebrewing" a class, though. I would tend to look elsewhere for those by default.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you and no offense taken.

5a) one important reason is that most if not all of my players are themselves (at least currently) well on the "homebrew adds more headaches than it's worth" side of the fence. In other words, they aren't pushing for homebrew solutions. Of course, this is at least partly due to the edition being rather new. If they are asked to make a new (4th?) character and WotC still haven't made more options available, perhaps they'll start asking for tweaks more.

5b) I find that I like the idea of running D&D "as is". I see a value in finding out whether the RAW classes can best challenges and complete adventures. Of course, now that I see how they run roughshod over the official content this reason is fading. On the other hand, if anything, I would want options that reduce PC power, not increase it. (We all still like options and flexibility, so any such solution would not include turning multiclassing and feats back off)

Do note that my reluctance is strictly for "player-initiated" homebrew. For instance, I had my Monk player find a headband that essentially gave him access to monk features four levels higher once a day. That is a homebrew item that directly affects classes. But the crucial difference is that it isn't something the player can count on, it's not something he can plan for when charbuilding.

Perhaps the most egregious case is if I let you know you would find a Gauntlet of Ogre Power in the end of the first dungeon you delve into, already before you create your character. This would then allow you to create a greatweapon strength-based build with Strength 8. You would certainly do alright using a finesse weapon up until you reach the bottom of that dungeon. This is perhaps the clearest example of what I don't want, and it doesn't even involve any homebrew or 3PP at all.

5c) you forgot "basic distrust of 3PP borne out of the 3E era"

Then add a pinch of 3) and there you have it!

Thank you for the reply. I have a better understanding now. I skipped 3e so I never experienced those issues, perhaps I am better for it.