D&D General what is the worst homebrew you have seen?

[Steampunkette]

All the content I make that I don't unleash on y'all.

Seriously, I think any designer of any level of seriousness has a drawer full of cringe they'd rather forget in their memory vault that they can't help but tinker with, off and on, to try and salvage it.

 

[Laurefindel]

I mean I understand their plight, but nuking it from orbit was a bit overkill. lol.

it's the only way to be sure...

 

[Galandris]

I think I need Ibuprofen just thinking abut trying to run that game!

Ah yes, the boot, one of the deadliest weapons in the 2e PHB.

I don't want to side with the munchkin, but didn't detonate effectively cause damage to everyone in a range around the detonated object?

(I tried to google it but I saw the suggestion when I typed detona was "detonate dead popes". It puzzles me.)

 

[James Gasik]

I don't want to side with the munchkin, but didn't detonate effectively cause damage to everyone in a range around the detonated object?

(I tried to google it but I saw the suggestion when I typed detona was "detonate dead popes". It puzzles me.)

So here's the power in question. Being forced to pull out my book, look it up, and make a ruling at the table, while I was trying to juggle a 20 character combat was not fun, let me tell you. I learned a long time ago that if a player tells you what their power does, there's a strong chance it doesn't work the way they think it does, lol.

So the power states it works on plants, inanimate objects, and animated undead (skeletons and zombies). You'll note it's area of effect is "one item" and also "8 cubic feet", but the power states it does 1d10 damage to all vulnerable objects the psionicist chooses to attack within 10 feet, with a save vs. breath weapon for half damage ("all" is apparently no more than 8 cubic feet). Now if you roll a 20 when initiating the power, it says that "everyone" within 10 feet of you is attacked, which seems to imply that detonate has the power to damage people, but my reading of the power is that otherwise it never states it does damage to anything other than an object, plant, or undead.

The player argued, of course, that it made no sense that all these exploding items wouldn't deal damage like the shrapnel of a grenade. I certainly could see it, but that's not what the power says it does (again, by my reading). I honestly don't remember what I said at the time, but I was pretty annoyed (pro tip: do not try to run a game for 20 players!) at this point, so I probably told him to detonate sand.

I'm curious how other people would rule, and if my reading was incorrect, though at this point it's largely moot- I don't see anyone begging me to run a 2e game, let alone wanting to be psionic (more's the pity; as wacky and unbalanced as 2e was, I have nostalgia for those days).

 

[Galandris]

Thank you for this detailed reply. I was unfazed by psionics at the time, but I ruled it like it could damage people -- possibly because I was a teenager at the time.

I hadn't understood that the 20 players in it meant they were 20 around the table. You're probably a world champion for having done that. I stall at around 6... can't imagine 20. I thought you had a group of 20 playing "in the campaign" as is, different groups in the same world. Wow!

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That is Mork Borg, two aisles over...

(I tried to google it but I saw the suggestion when I typed detona was "detonate dead popes". It puzzles me.)

My ruling (and I had to read it a couple of times to arrive at it, in the comfort of my own home, not in the middle of a game with 20 players) would be that based on the use of the term objects, Detonate only affects inanimate objects with the d10 damage unless you roll a nat 20. It would've been far more productive, and within the scope of the rules, for the player to destroy the orc's weapon or armor.

So here's the power in question. Being forced to pull out my book, look it up, and make a ruling at the table, while I was trying to juggle a 20 character combat was not fun, let me tell you. I learned a long time ago that if a player tells you what their power does, there's a strong chance it doesn't work the way they think it does, lol.

View attachment 269041
View attachment 269042
So the power states it works on plants, inanimate objects, and animated undead (skeletons and zombies). You'll note it's area of effect is "one item" and also "8 cubic feet", but the power states it does 1d10 damage to all vulnerable objects the psionicist chooses to attack within 10 feet, with a save vs. breath weapon for half damage ("all" is apparently no more than 8 cubic feet). Now if you roll a 20 when initiating the power, it says that "everyone" within 10 feet of you is attacked, which seems to imply that detonate has the power to damage people, but my reading of the power is that otherwise it never states it does damage to anything other than an object, plant, or undead.

The player argued, of course, that it made no sense that all these exploding items wouldn't deal damage like the shrapnel of a grenade. I certainly could see it, but that's not what the power says it does (again, by my reading). I honestly don't remember what I said at the time, but I was pretty annoyed (pro tip: do not try to run a game for 20 players!) at this point, so I probably told him to detonate sand.

I'm curious how other people would rule, and if my reading was incorrect, though at this point it's largely moot- I don't see anyone begging me to run a 2e game, let alone wanting to be psionic (more's the pity; as wacky and unbalanced as 2e was, I have nostalgia for those days).

 

[James Gasik]

Thank you for this detailed reply. I was unfazed by psionics at the time, but I ruled it like it could damage people -- possibly because I was a teenager at the time.

I hadn't understood that the 20 players in it meant they were 20 around the table. You're probably a world champion for having done that. I stall at around 6... can't imagine 20. I thought you had a group of 20 playing "in the campaign" as is, different groups in the same world. Wow!

I don't know, it's actually one of the low points of my DMing career. Session 1 was actually pretty fun, but by Session 2, cracks were forming, and Session 3 ended with me packing up my books and walking out on the group because some of the players felt it was a great idea to engage in PVP with one another, which is something I have never had the patience for.

 

[James Gasik]

That is Mork Borg, two aisles over...



My ruling (and I had to read it a couple of times to arrive at it, in the comfort of my own home, not in the middle of a game with 20 players) would be that based on the use of the term objects, Detonate only affects inanimate objects with the d10 damage unless you roll a nat 20. It would've been far more productive, and within the scope of the rules, for the player to destroy the orc's weapon or armor.

If I can be forgiven for this continued sidetrack on Detonate...

So the weird thing is, by the 2e rules, (page 58 of the revised "black" DMG), "the roll to hit and hit points do not apply" when equipment is subjected to danger. Instead you roll on the Item Saving Throw table, and even then, only if the object is unattended- if attended, you only check to see if items are damaged fails a saving throw against an attack.

So unless an object has stated hit points, it would follow that an item saving throw be made. Now the text of Detonate talks about a Breath Weapon save, but that's not on the list of things items have to save for, which includes "acid attacks, crushing blows, disintegration, falls, magical fires, normal fires, cold, lightning bolt, and electrical". So in this case, it seems that a ruling might be to give a character or NPC a breath weapon save to avoid Detonate's effect, and then if they fail, determine what the item saving throw should be (Crushing Blow perhaps).

Inanimate objects do have hit points, mind, but the rules only concern themselves with things like cutting ropes, doors, barrels, and so on. And even then, you need a weapon that deals the appropriate damage type- a club isn't much use against a rope. Some items are given example hit points (a wooden door might have 1d20+30 hit points, a chair 1d8+1), but in a lot of cases, it's up to the DM to decide.

As a result, it feels like the creator of Detonate was either unfamiliar with the rules in the DMG, or was used to house rules of some kind. It seems like the intent was to create a psionic version of the shatter spell, without actually referencing shatter in any way (which causes items affected to save vs. crushing blow, and does damage to crystalline-based creatures).

*As an aside, while the DMG ruled that damage to weapons and armor was temporary, and repaired in the field, the Complete Fighter's Handbook had some optional rules for destroying armor. In this case, the armor had "damage points" based on it's type and materials. You deduct one armor point for each attack that hits the character (and it's one damage point no matter how much damage the attack did to the character). Plate mail, for example, has 35 "damage points".

 

[Faolyn]

I'm curious how other people would rule, and if my reading was incorrect, though at this point it's largely moot- I don't see anyone begging me to run a 2e game, let alone wanting to be psionic (more's the pity; as wacky and unbalanced as 2e was, I have nostalgia for those days).

Logic indicates shrapnel damage, but I'd say that neither RAW nor RAI suggests that it would actually cause any damage to living beings. The "everyone" is probably a typo, since I don't think this book was put through much, if any, editing, playtesting, or even theorycrafting.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Convoluted descriptions and the duplication of existing D&D spells as things that aren't spells have ever been amongst the reasons I hated psionics before 5e finally said "no, they're spells and we're going to use the system we've got in place."

As a result, it feels like the creator of Detonate was either unfamiliar with the rules in the DMG, or was used to house rules of some kind. It seems like the intent was to create a psionic version of the shatter spell, without actually referencing shatter in any way (which causes items affected to save vs. crushing blow, and does damage to crystalline-based creatures).

 

[RealAlHazred]

I'm curious how other people would rule

"You successfully Detonate the orc's boot, right when he was charging!" roll dice behind the screen, ignore them "The orc is shocked as he suddenly rockets thirty feet in the air in mid-stride!" roll more dice behind the screen, look at them with a baffled expression no matter what they say, vocalize Huh! "You see the expression on the orc's face change from bafflement to evil, maniacal glee, as he changes his grip on his greataxe to a full overhand swing! He descends, off-balance but full of bloody-minded violence!" pick up my largest d20 and roll it behind the screen, when if stops nudge it as I'm lifting my screen so it says 20 when everyone can see it "Wow! He critical hits as he lands on his axehead! That's an additional 6d6 for the extra thirty feet fallen!" roll damage out in the open "So, that's XX points of damage! And he critted -- let me check the chart!" roll critical hit out in the open, because at this point it's just pity "Hmmm... 'Stumble over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle. You lose 2 rounds of offensive action but can still parry.' Tough break. Oh, and the orc lands prone and takes 6d6 falling damage as well. Who's up next?"

Yes, I know that result is actually a fumble result, not a critical hit. But it's really funny, and serves for my example.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not sure if this counts but some local edgelords using desktop publishing and the university printing made their own rpg 2004-8.

Not sure what it did how it worked the interior design was a hot mess (edgelords).

Not sure if it was a parody or not but one of the options was a Catholic priest who could aquire children.

So yeah. Think they were selling it for around $5 which was the printing cost. Sold 1-2 copies local flgs probably to one of their friends.

Print run was something like a dozen copies it was the size of one of the old 2E Complete XYZ books.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not sure if this counts but some local edgelords using desktop publishing and the university printing made their own rpg 2004-8.

Not sure what it did how it worked the interior design was a hot mess (edgelords).

Not sure if it was a parody or not but one of the options was a Catholic priest who could aquire children.

So yeah. Think they were selling it for around $5 which was the printing cost. Sold 1-2 copies local flgs probably to one of their friends.

Print run was something like a dozen copies it was the size of one of the old 2E Complete XYZ books.

So much of this lines up with the Book of Vile Darkness; edgelords, design was a mess, guy who acquires children to make an edgy joke... I'm not sure if the post itself it not just a clever parody itself.

 

[Zardnaar]

So much of this lines up with the Book of Vile Darkness; edgelords, design was a mess, guy who acquires children to make an edgy joke... I'm not sure if the post itself it not just a clever parody itself.

Book of Vile Darkness was a high class product comparatively. I don't think the BoVD is good but I seem to like it marginally more than internet scuttlebutt (reread it 6 months ago).

 

[James Gasik]

Convoluted descriptions and the duplication of existing D&D spells as things that aren't spells have ever been amongst the reasons I hated psionics before 5e finally said "no, they're spells and we're going to use the system we've got in place."

Yeah, while a neat concept, psionics really suffers in that almost anything you'd want such powers to do has been done by magic first, making it an exercise in reinventing the wheel. And this is from someone who actually likes psionics being part of D&D.

 

[cbwjm]

One of the things I really like about psionics is that it breaks away from the standard spellcasting system to create something new. It's also why I wasn't a huge fan of the 3e version of psionics since they just gave everything a "spell" level and made it a spell point magic system.

 

[CleverNickName]

There are a number of ways to do Psionics in 5E, but my favorites are:

Spoiler: Favorite: UA #32

Unearthed Arcana #32, "The Mystic," is all the psionics I could ever want in 5e. Even in its unpolished playtest form, it's better than most psionics I've seen published or house-ruled elsewhere.

Spoiler: Second-favorite: Tasha's

Some folks don't allow Unearthed Arcana materials at their tables. And hey, fair enough...it's definitely not for everyone. If that's the case, the Custom Origin rules (Tasha's) + Aberrant Mind sorcerer (Tasha's) + Spell Points rule (DMG) work pretty well.

Spoiler: Third-favorite: Core Only

If your DM doesn't allow any non-core material, go with a Divination or Transmutation wizard. Ask to use the Spell Points variant, but it's not a deal-breaker if the DM won't allow it. The most important part is to never use the words "spell" or "magic," always say "powers" and "psionics" instead. Get an Orb for your arcane focus, but always call it a "psi crystal." And so forth.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There are a number of ways to do Psionics in 5E, but my favorites are:

Spoiler: Favorite: UA #32

Unearthed Arcana #32, "The Mystic," is all the psionics I could ever want in 5e. Even in its unpolished playtest form, it's better than most psionics I've seen published or house-ruled elsewhere.

Spoiler: Second-favorite: Tasha's

Some folks don't allow Unearthed Arcana materials at their tables. And hey, fair enough...it's definitely not for everyone. If that's the case, the Custom Origin rules (Tasha's) + Aberrant Mind sorcerer (Tasha's) + Spell Points rule (DMG) work pretty well.

Spoiler: Third-favorite: Core Only

If your DM doesn't allow any non-core material, go with a Divination or Transmutation wizard. Ask to use the Spell Points variant, but it's not a deal-breaker if the DM won't allow it. The most important part is to never use the words "spell" or "magic," always say "powers" and "psionics" instead. Get an Orb for your arcane focus, but always call it a "psi crystal." And so forth.

No enchanter wizard or knowledge cleric? They are like my go-to wannabe psions if we go with PHB only!

But yeah, a trimmed down Mystic is spot on for any basic psionic needs as far as I'm concerned.