Unbalanced
“Dudes! I just found this awesome class. I think maybe it’s 3rd party….”
If you’re a GM, chances are that sentence makes you nervous. If you’re an especially experienced GM, you may be in the throws of a traumatic flashback. That’s because you can remember the smoking ruins of some long-ago campaign when you decided to take an anything goes approach to gaming supplements. Suddenly your Tolkien-inspired fantasy world was inundated with platypus folk and lactomancers, and there was much facepalming throughout the land.
Flavor issues aside, the most common opinion I’ve encountered on the subject is, “I don’t want some poorly playtested, unbalanced crap in my game.” And to a certain extent I think that’s a fair cop. Big companies like Paizo or Wizards of the Coast are rigorous in a way that mom and pop operations can’t be. However, I can remember a time when a player in one of my Pathfinder games wanted to grab the pre-errata Divine Intervention for her oracle. I was of the opinion that it was OP, and the errata ultimately vindicated my position. Same deal with the load of 5e errata floating around out there. The big dogs make mistakes too. Disallowing 3rd party content might reduce the amount of “not at my tables” you’ll have to hand out, but it won’t eliminate them.
I’ve written my share of third party content, so that might color my opinion here. But I think that GMs always have a responsibility to look at the ideas players bring to the game, then determine if they fit within the overall tone of the campaign. That’s why I default to “anything goes if I give it the thumbs up” when it’s my turn to sit behind the screen. Besides which, the occasional dragon rider or goblin exemplar can add some fun variety to the table.
What do the rest of you guys think? Do you allow third party material in your games? Why or why not? Let’s hear it in the comments!
GET YOUR SCHWAG ON! Want a piece of Handbook-World to hang on you wall? Then you’ll want to check out the “Hero” reward tier on the The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. Each monthly treasure hall will bring you prints, decals, buttons, bookmarks and more! There’s even talk of a few Handbook-themed mini-dungeons on the horizon. So hit the link, open up that treasure chest, and see what loot awaits!
I am usually willing to allow third party material, but I read it over before I say yes or no.
I’m personally more interested that my players are having fun and the game is balanced than whose name is on the document that the classes we’re using comes from.
I see we are of the same mind on the subject.
Any stories of third party material that worked well?
It’s been a good while since I’ve run anything, so nothing too memorable sadly.
The only 3rd party material I’m a default “yes” on is stuff from Dreamscarred Pess. Everything else I need to look over first before they can bring it in. I also warn players that if they play 3rd party material, homebrew, or Unearthed Arcana, I reserve the right to tweak any aspect about it if I feel it’s OP (or more rarely UP).
That being said, I still like good 3rd party material, mainly because I love weird parties and campaigns with lots of crazy stuff and 3rd party material gives more options. Sure it can be unbalanced, but so can stuff from the main publishers. WotC was the one that released Monks and Druids in the same 3rd edition book after all.
Dreamscarred Press has a great reputation. I know they’re responsible for updating the old psionic classes into Pathfinder, but what else have they done? Why do they enjoy that sterling reputation?
Mostly the stuff they put out is high quality and balanced. They’re also responsible to updating Tome of Battle to Pathfinder via Paths of War, giving melee people options in combat and making it feel a bit more cinematic. Some people don’t like it for feeling to “anime” or making fighters like spellcasters, but I’m personally a big fan.
I didn’t realize the connection between Tome of Battle and Paths of War. Is it fair to say that they picked the most successful of the available content and dusted it off for a new audience?
I’d say so. I was a big fan of ToB, even if it did have some gaps in the martial archetypes of what style of combat they offered. PoW came and filled most of those gaps, including defense, fencing, and archery, as well as making the classes themselves more interesting and defined by more than just what disciplines they have access too. They’ve also managed to fix some of the more infamous problems, such as PoW’s Iron Heart Surge equivalent no longer being gamebreaking (and I mean literally gamebreaking. The way IHS was worded, an inventive character could destroy the sun as a standard action.)
I have a campaign across several modules that I run. I allowed the players to take what I call “perks”. For example, a Paladin decides to take a combat perk. I allow him to Captain america his shield 1/day, for 1d4 starting, + his STR mod (I increase the damage every 4-5 lvls). My players are enjoying the hell out of it, & it lets me throw challenging enemies at them, without overwhelming them.
Wait a minute… You mean that YOU’RE the third party developer?
It’s actually an interesting conceit, now that I think of it. Serious question to consider: What’s the difference between a GM’s homebrew and third party developer’s content?
Well, technically, isn’t that second party content?
I’d say the main difference is that the GM knows his players and can tell what they will use tolerably and what they will abuse the crap out of. Plus, anything he creates is balanced, at least in his opinion.
Chances are the GM has gone through much the same process as a third party designer though. I mean, both have written up some rules and then put them into the game to see how they work. As far as I can tell, these have about the same chance of working in practice.
For example, I recently tried to alter the way group stealth checks work in my Pathfinder game. In brief, the player with the lowest modifier rolled for the group, and everyone else was allowed to Aid Another, DC 10. For every 5 over that DC they added another +2 to the check. I thought it would work out better than the usual “everyone roll, if one of you fails everyone fails.” In practice it turned out to add an unreasonably high bonus to the check, removing all risk.
GM-generated content may feel like a good idea (a least in the GM’s opinion), but it might not play out that way in practice. Same deal with allowing in third party content.
Have you considered an alternative method of group stealth? I’ve had a DM play (and use it myself) where it’s based on a pass/fail system: everyone rolls stealth vs the DC, and people who beat the DC add a “pass,” and people who beat the DC add a “fail; natural 1s count as two fails, nat 20s as two passes. If there are more passes than fails, the group is stealthy. If there are more fails than passes, the group is spotted. If there are the same amount of each, the people who failed are detected but the people who passed are not, letting them get a surprise attack or slink away if they want. Helps make a stealthy party more viable so that one low roll doesn’t sink the whole group without getting sky high numbers like the system you tried did.
Believe me. I’ve considered A LOT of alternatives:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/michigan-j-fighter
I believe your rule is close to the 5e version, and I’m seriously considering adapting it to my Pathfinder game.
They can either have a combat or skill perk, but it has to be balanced against a negative. I’m not stupid, I KNOW they’d try to abuse it. A War cleric tried to use his ability to ask his deity a favor to donit every battle. I saw that coming & said he could, but the deity’s favor was gonna be based on what I rolled on the Wild Magic surge table. Put a stop to that PDQ.
I’m fairly well against 3rd party material, especially for 5e. So much of it is 3.5 and PF stuff that has no business in 5e. As a DM for an MMO 5e campaign, most of the broken builds we have seen involves 3rd party content. I particularly don’t like homebrew classes and feats because they tend to have such a large impact on the game; I am more allowing of homebrew races, items, and sometimes archetypes.
That said, WotC’s Unearthed Arcana stuff is no better! Some of it is alright, most of it isn’t. Of course, they put out this content to be playtested, but it irks me to no end that the community latches onto UA stuff as if it is somehow better than your average dandwiki garbage.
What didn’t you like about the Errata? I thought the changes were fine, with the exception of how Monks (particularly Wo4E) were needlessly nerfed.
I think it’s not so much that the errate that’s the problem, as the fact that they need to put out errata to correct mistakes shows they’ve made mistakes in the first place.
Also, a 5e MMO? How exactly does that work?
I have no opinions about the errata. I haven’t looked closely at it to be honest. My point in bringing it up is that everyone makes mistakes, and it’s up to each individual gaming group to decide what material to include, regardless of its source.
That said, I can understand wanting to prioritize game balance in a massively multiplayer setting. It’s a lot harder to accept the idea of ad hoc rulings when you’re trying to organize a large community.
Well, that and much of the UA has a big disclaimer on it that says “not designed for multiclassing” but everyone turns around and says “time to look at it only in the perspective of a power-gamey multiclasser”.
Also, yeah, those Monk of the Four Elements nerfs hurt. I loved my bonus action Water Whip action Fist of Unbroken Air rounds where you. It felt like you were completely controlling your target.
Also, if it’s the 5e MMO that I’m thinking of, it community events or quests happen and people sign up for them. The one I’m thinking of isn’t necessarily massive, but akin in size to an MMORPG-guild, with about 20-45 active users doing their things over the course of the week.
And yeah, there seems to be a large abundance of players in that group that shy away from making core-5e characters, which can be a bit excessive at times.
We allow 3rd party content after it is reviewed by 2 or 3 of us, with the stipulation that if something OP sneaks past in a box full of kittens, then it can be nerfed or retcon’d at the DMs discretion later. There are a few publishers who get a strict NO to anything they produce though.
I imagine most 3rd party content is not as OP if used strictly with the content that it was designed for, such as modules and campaign setting made by the same publisher… I think a lot of problems come out when you try to put it into YOUR setting without editing it to fit. This does take work though…
I don’t know how I’ve missed this connection before… Have you ever played Magic: the Gathering? In competitive play there are different tournament types, with different sets of cards allowed in each. The most powerful decks (the kinds that can combo a win “on turn two about 30% of the time”) come from the most unrestricted tournaments with the most possible card options.
Anything goes can be fun, but a different metagame and different play styles result when you restrict the cards. I wonder if you could create something similar in splatbook-heavy games like 3.5 or Pathfinder?
Yeah that makes some sense as a comparison. I have played MTG and still have a few decks too. (SAPROLLINGS FOR LIFE!) I like a good game where you need a bag of dice or a calculator to keep track of what you have.
For us, we typically don’t have a campaign that can run anything from Super Genius Games. Nothing like a Godling stepping on the scale to start tipping it. The problem with comparing it to MTG is that, unless they release more and more content on a regular schedule, they won’t have very much to choose from in the long run. It would be more like having to choose different MTG sets and then everyone has to pick a starter deck from that release.
Maybe core rulebook + 1 other? So in Pathfinder terms, you could choose Occult Adventures or Ultimate Intrigue, but not both. That way you get some variety without all the super-build potential? And if you allow “consensus OP” stuff like godlings, maybe you allow mythic or gestalt as options for other players.
Just spitballing here, but it could be fun.
I’ve heard of beginner DMs bringing the core books and allowing each player to bring one book of their choice to the table, subject to approval. In 3.5 this meant the wizard was always bringing the Spell Compendium, but it gives players the chance to play that one cool thing without as much power creep as allowing all splatbooks.
Absolutely, especially as a new DM it’s important to go from the core, and work your way out. Either eventually adding books mid-adventure, or starting a new one. I also don’t allow a book that I haven’t read, sat down, and studied/thought about to find ways to possibly break it.
So at first I had the 3 core books. Then I added 3 Core Books + Draconomicon (cause I love me some dragons). I have occasionally sprinkled in some of the ultimate series, but I tend to be cautious about them because without the full set, one class-type tends to outshine the rest.
I haven’t played 3.5 in a long time, and I really wish I had a group to play with. I tend to lean on a core of PHB, PHB II, DMG, DMG II, MM, Weapons of Legacy, and then add in a “theme book”, maybe part of the “Tome of Magic” if I want to include either the abominations, shadow casters, or rune-magic–but usually not all 3. Maybe a few classes from different “Ultimate” series if they fit.
If I’m going to be restricting things though, or allowing things, I try to have fluff reasons. Because I’m a slightly crazy person, before character creation night with a group I was running, I sent/gave them all a 7-page packet that gave some background information on common knowledge in the setting (a very brief history of the country they are in, major houses) that most folks would know, any house rules I’m going to be using, new domains, etc. That way on character night they can come having thought about the setting (so they are already a bit excited) and have a character idea, but they aren’t sure how to fit it in, and I can work with them while players are rolling dice/picking feats, whatever, to get their back story built a bit.
Some examples from my setting:
A brief setting intro (3 paragraphs)
Information on the predominate religious/political orders (3 general paragraphs, and then a couple describing each of the major sects, including color scheme and general outlook)
“Beguiler
The only sanctioned beguilers are those currently serving the Order. While some of these work closely with the Landsraad’s City Watch forces, most serve directly with the Order. Generally they act as informants watching the common people and seeking out rogue magic-users. Some are far more sinister and serve in the inquisition actively interrogating prisoners.
Rumors persist of a secret society that sticks to the shadows and subtly influences events in the kingdom. Officially the existence of such a group is denied both by the Landsraad forces and by the Order. However, the Order has spent much energy seeking out any who may have information about this order.”
This gives the players information on how to play a beguiler…either they are part of the Order…and probably won’t want the other PCs to know, unless they are all going to be part of the Order (which would be a campaign-party setting before hand to make sure they have appropriate adventures). Or…they are an unsanctioned Beguiler, either having to hide what they do from the order, serving one of the noble houses perhaps (though that would limit which ones would have such a retainer), or part of the secret society (which I have plotted out, and if they want to go that route I would pull them aside and give them much more information so they can play their character without just saying “Oh yeah, I’m part of a secret society!”)
I do all of this because it shifts more of the focus from “Good numbers on pages” to “What skills/feats/equipment serve my character best?” Sometimes that means that an unsanctioned wizard better invest in bluff or something to avoid attention. Which means they can’t spend all their points in min-maxing. A fighter may want to spend some points in Knowledge (Nobility) if they want to know maybe not to work with certain noble houses.
If someone wanted to bring 3rd party stuff into this, as long as they introduced it to me ahead of time, and we could sit and talk about it a bit, and it was clear it wasn’t just to make a min-max character that doesn’t fit with the setting…go for it. It gives me ideas how to tweak settings to play to the classes strengths and weaknesses. If it has no apparent weakness (I’m a d12 Hit Die, full Arcane/Divine Spell Casting, sneak-attacking, highly-skilled whatever…) I am less likely to accept it. Unfortunately I think that happens when people try to make 3rd party content based around a single main-character from a movie and what to be the best at everything forgetting there are other players at the table too.
Interesting… So for you it’s about setting first and foremost, power creep second. That seems reasonable to me, but the downside is that you’ve got to make judgement calls on player motivation.
“You only want to play the Divine Sneakomancer for the d12 Hit Die, full Arcane/Divine Spell Casting, sneak-attacking, etc. etc.”
“But the fluff is so cool!”
In a vacuum, I could picture that causing some conflicts. In practice, I’m guessing you know your players well enough to make a pretty educated guess. Not a bad approach. 🙂
I’ve been lucky, my Pathfinder DMs have been pretty cool about third party material. It helps that one of the campaigns I was in was totally the DM’s homebrew – setting, races, everything, so the DM could approve stuff that might have clashed with basic Golarion information. And the game I’m currently in, which is the Hell’s Rebels AP, my DM was fine with me playing a member of the Ryven race from Frog God Games because he liked the idea of a big badger-man battle cleric of Gorum. Though in the interest of balance, I rebuilt what was originally a massively OP third party race with the Race Builder rules to make it less overwhelmingly strong and put its point value back down around Dhampir/Aasimar.
In my experience, third party material tends to be one of three types: It’s either underpowered and relying on fluff to make people want it, it’s a ‘third party’ feat/item/etc. that tries to fix problems with the first party material, or it’s really OP and relying on powergaming to make people want it.
Also in my experience, that latter type is the one most likely to have people asking their DM about it.
Please tell me that your badger man shouts Eulalia! before charging into battle.
It was a consideration, but ultimately rejected.
In my defense, I did name him Brok though.
I feel like 3PP is nice to look at sometimes as an object example of ‘here’s what variation tastes like.’ If there’s something in one of those classes, archetypes, or whatnot that my player -truly- wants (and I think it’s thematically appropriate or has good reasoning) then I’d rather have them play with a more core class and use the Divine Interposition of Houserule to retrofit, rather than say “Okay, Subterranean Street Samurai seems fine, go for it.” I’m more likely to remember house rules that I make than house rules someone else makes, which is important when you’re trying to build an encounter to work with or around said special abilities.
I dunno…. You’re a Pathfinder guy, right? I feel like there are too many classes to get my head around already. I’ve got to do the “build an encounter to work with or around said special abilities” thing regardless of a class’s source. I certainly feel that way prepping for Laurel’s current kineticist / vigilante gestalt.
That’s why it’s easy to do in PF, since there’s probably already an archetype or something real close to what you’re wanting, anyway. I have little experience with 5th edition, which may be where the dissonance comes from in this case.
Right on. But what I’m getting at is that I’ll have to incorporate unfamiliar rules in a broad game like Pathfinder regardless of the source. Whether it’s an unfamiliar occult class or the aforementioned Subterranean Street Samurai, I’m going to have to do some reading in either case.
I’m interested in the idea of “my house rules vs. somebody else’s house rules.” That question of whose rules had more authority was a big part of my MA thesis. 🙂
There are only two Pathfinder Third Party Prestige classes my GM has looked at and given his blessing on.
Well, no, that’s not quite true. He let’s us play any that he’s looked over, it’s just he has only genuinely liked and approved of two (that we’ve played), and those two are the Armor-Bonded (though he and I agreed it could use some rework). The other is the Pikeman, the spear-focused PrC.
Other than that, we’ve had people use other third-party before, but it is more often than not the case of a player seeing a strong class but not actually knowing how to make it as strong as it could be *cough* Godlings *cough*, and the people that do know how to make it work properly choose not to anyway.
That being said, I have seen a variety of reasonable third-party material, such as the Nightblade, but so much of it just seems like an excuse to make stupidly powerful builds that all third-party gets this bad reputation.
P.S. Me and my dm did joke that one day I would play a Jotun-Ogre and he would play a Gnome Alchemist, and I’d just walk around 50 feet tall with his gnome-sized two story house/workshop on my back. But that was such a joke build everyone was alright with it.
Oh, and I totally forgot to mention the DM is all right with some third-party races as well, though I don’t think he’s too fond of Racial classes.
The one thing he did mind the least was the “Noble Wild” third-party content, which is a sourcebook describing mechanics for Talking Animals.
We had a Songbird Bard at one point, and I (being the one that found and introduced it to the party) played several critters, from a Talking Stag, a Talking Dog, and a Talking Panther.
Welcome to the comic, Wildstag!
I’d be curious to hear more about how “Noble Wild” plays in practice. I’ve been contemplating a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern episode in my own campaign, and I’d love the chance to let the PCs play their own familiars / animal companions for a session or two.
It’s been a while since commenting. The last time I did was on game-racism (my personal story was on dragon-racism).
Anyway, the Noble Wild rules are available on d20pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/caedwyr-s-lab/noble-wild-species/)(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/caedwyr-s-lab/noble-wild-species/noble-animal-species/), but the site is missing some of the information.
Basically, most creatures Small or smaller have no racial levels, just modifiers. Every other creature starts out at a certain size, usually small, and as they take racial levels, they also get a size increase. In addition, they get any racial abilities that are a bit strong for level 1 characters.
For example, 3 levels of the “Noble Big Cat” (leopards, mountain lions, jaguars) gives you pounce, grab, and rake, along with several stat increases, a size increase, and a speed increase. Pounce/Grab/Rake are big abilities that a level 1 character shouldn’t have, so it’s spread out over several levels to make it usable.
Certain skills and classes are changed to fit the difference in biological build. For example, Craft and Sleight of Hand are removed for most creatures, except for Raccoons and Apes. Sleight of Hand is replaced with “Deft of Jaw”, which is more limited. Survival is a class skill for every creature-class. Armor proficiency is dropped for all creatures except horses, elephants, and dogs.
Monks can flurry with natural attacks, druids get humanoid companions, wizards get humanoid familiars, as well as sorcerers. There is also a new class called “Greater Familiar” for creatures that want to be familiars instead of wizards but are more focused on counterspelling.
It’s all pretty interesting, and I’d love to do a full Narnia-esque campaign with this kinda thing, it’s really interesting, y’know? The book is really worth the spend, but I have a love of playing more bestial characters, and this suits my interests, so your mileage may vary.
I remember that conversation! (colored dragons. heh.) I was thrown by having to click “approve” on your comment. The site makes me do that every time an existing user posts a link… And when someone posts for the first time.
Anywho, I’ve always wanted to run an “A Night in the Lonesome October” game, so greater familiar is definitely intriguing.
Hello! Been a reader for a while, but I don’t think I’ve commented before. I think it’s about time I start weighing in.
I actually love third-party material. Seeing different takes on design within the same overall ruleset is very interesting, and I really like seeing creative folks take a crack at concepts that Paizo just won’t seem to do. So, in my spare time, I really just enjoy seeking out and reading through lots of third party books even if I’ll likely never use them. It helps that I can usually pick up a lot of them inexpensively from places like the open gaming store. Gotta love those megabundles.
In the game I’m running right now I explicitly okay’d classes by Dreamscarredpress as well as Spheres of Power by Drop Dead Studios, and I would have considered other sources as well if players brought them to me for review. The end result of this was a party with 3 Path of War martials and 2 Sphere casters, which has been a lot of fun.
As for why, well I had a few reasons. For one, some of my players are relatively inexperienced with pathfinder, and I actually feel like Spheres is both easier to learn/manage and more balanced than Paizo’s spellcasters. Path of War, on the other hand, has proven to be a bit more complex to use. However, I just really like that system and how it allows martial characters to have more fun, cinematic moments in combat or the story. It can get pretty “anime,” but my group likes that anyway.
Well hey, thanks for piping up! I love my twice-a-week discussions beneath the comic. 😀
For the spheres of power players, what are their concepts? Did the system allow them to execute a particular vision (E.g. “I want to be a Jedi” or “I want to be Spider-Man”)?
Yay SoP! I feel Spheres of Power lets me mold a character more than traditional casting. Anyone who has ever wanted a spell that would fit perfectly for their character, but it wasn’t on their list for some reason will like SoP.
You want an archangel caster but you want healing and don’t need all those buff spells? Take Life sphere and don’t go enhancement. I know one of the next books they are releasing to expound upon the creation sphere will allow you to basically make a light saber. It also has a creation talent that let’s you combine the Destruction sphere and Creation sphere to destroy something and make it into something else (hello Full Metal Alchemist)
You can even change your casting traditions. Take magical signs instead of focus casting. Use verbal instead of somatic. I really do recommend it to anyone.
As an example: I wanted to make the typical “unlucky cat” for a long time now. I had everything mapped out (Dual-Cursed Oracle with Wrecker and Haunted curses and the Black Cat feat) the problem was the spell list was still the same old generic Oracle spells. Not much actually went with the character idea. Then I picked her back up after SoP came out and suddenly I could use Fate to make attackers and allies reroll. The Destruction sphere with Destructive touch drawback so no ranged blasts put more into the “Everything I touch breaks” mentality. I could use other spheres to effect my environment in other ways. I felt like the character was more MINE.
Ugh “arcane” not “archangel” you stupid phone!
How user friendly is it? I’m trying to imagine some of the “concept first” folks in my group using this, but they’re also the “I don’t like futzing with rules” types.
One of the sphere players in my game wanted to create a “magical cook” of sorts, so they went Incanter and took talents that let them do things like create fire and ice, and through drawbacks they’ve made a spatula into the focus that they use for casting. I think his concept has turned out well.
The other player wanted to make a highly charismatic musical caster, but instead of going Bard they picked a Hedgewitch (an extremely customizable class) with Traditions that make him sort of a rogue/bard skill monkey with some interesting supportive auras in combat. His talents are spread kind of broad, but they all support his theme of putting on a good show. He can create and manipulate lights, make images and sounds, and shoot lightning in a pinch.
I think, in general, Spheres of Power excels at letting players create a character that they envision that functions well even at very low levels. For instance, someone who wants to play a “fire mage” could easily create and control normal fires, surround themselves in a firey aura, create walls of fire, and of course blast enemies in the face with it all at level 1-2.
It’s pretty straight forward in the “look for things that match your character” way.
The part that may be a bit of a curve is the changes to casting mechanics. It’s a lot like traditional. Spell levels aren’t a thing anymore, so instead of that you use something like a magic CMB and CMD. If they like “concept first” then they may push through just for the sake of the good part.
Very cool. Thanks for taking the time to give me the rundown! I may have to shell out at this point just to see what all the fuss is about. 🙂
I’m completely against it in my game. For a while a few years ago I considered possibly allowing Dreamscarred Press’s psionic classes, but ultimately decided against it on the logic of “while wizard can completely break the game in half, is takes a ton of work to do so.”
On a similar subject, I also disallow the kineticist class, because I personally don’t like it, it doesn’t really mesh well with everything else, and it’s page on d20pfsrd is impossible to read through.
I know my pupils dilated when I tried to read Kineticist for the first time. It’s pretty straightforward in practice, but the grocking takes a little time.
I’m of the same opinion. There’s nothing wrong with homebrew stuff conceptually, I’ve made plenty of homebrew stuff myself (5e included).
That said there’s certainly a lot wrong with homebrew stuff. Like by the pound that is. The vast majority of stuff out there follows the rule of pick any two: Very unbalanced, Poorly written to the point of being vague or not properly functional for how the system is written (and often poorly written for the standards of the language it’s written in too), Silly to the point of actually being aggravating/annoying/offensive if used in a game attempting any amount of seriousness.
That said, official material is far from perfect. Even 5e, my favorite edition of D&D because it’s the least mechanically broken has things that are clearly poorly balanced to each other right from the start. For example Dwarves vs Dragonborn. Or the original version of the pet using Ranger. *shudder*
As for the question of today’s comic. I’m gonna say…. both. ;D
Do you have your homebrew stuff posted anywhere? I’d be curious to check it out.
Not compiled in any one place. I’ve got some 4e stuff on one forum that just a few friends of mine use.
As for 5e, it’s a set of stuff that my intention was to put all in a thread once it was finished. Mostly so people don’t pressure me to finish it and I make stuff that isn’t good by rushing. Which… is why it’s not all finished and I haven’t posted it yet.
But I’ll throw the links at the stuff I’ve got here.
Black Mage: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gdc0heSz-vtZyMO_QlgPSIMCk150O25rjQKs8fX0HIY/edit
White Mage: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IN7XEyRREcyiTDqo6F-FCxVlfQbo0ghTDVa-X49ybqs/edit
Red Mage: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vqkshyviIaaUJJpH5Ui485qk7AheUZAmt-CMGgjtYLg/edit
Summoner: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AGN3siuEkspY7qYYM_yeHwF6-pyjbInFNALPjx2Tji0/edit#
(This one is a re-work of a homebrew class someone else did, because I liked the concept but not all of the implementation and a lot of the mechanical wording was vague/broken so that it didn’t work right.)
Geomancer (Unfinished): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpNs_KAgHVP0mGHvHPoep1BECwb5vteDh3BinNcu7JU/edit
Mime (Unfinished): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EBZXqddksffaFwqbebBU6toYpTp3T7cs21YtZCN__Dw/edit
(Thanks to the Blue Mage spells being so much work, it’s entirely possible I’ll never get around to actually finishing this one.)
I also plan to make a Dragoon archetype for Fighter and a Mugger archetype for Rogue.
That Final Fantasy stuff looks like a lot of fun. It also looks like a lot of work to put into something that’s copyrighted. Have you considered renaming them, readjusting the flavor a bit, and then throwing ’em up on the DMs guild? Fun and profit and all that….
Sounds like a thing to do when/if I’m actually finished with all of them. Of course that also means actually giving them flavor. While profit is nice, I’m mostly just happy if people enjoy things like these I’ve put effort into. So feel free to share them if for some reason you know of people planning to play a Final Fantasy themed 5e game (or who would just like some of the stuff the classes do mechanically).
As for how much work it was/is… yeah. The first few blew past pretty quickly. I hadn’t realized how much work the later ones would actually be when I decided on the project. Thus the slow pace for the later stuff.
Believe me, I understand the time that game design demands. It’s shaping up to be a VERY busy couple of week between now and Gen Con.
Best of luck on your project. I know I’ll need a little bit of luck on mine.
While I have used some 3rd party stuff in some games, I feel sometimes just setting a blanket rule is best. I’m currently in a Living World campaign with 37 players at last count, each allowed to have up to 3 characters. I can see why the GM just says ‘No 3rd Party’ stuff.
Now there’s an interesting idea… A small table has the bandwidth to make ad hoc rulings, but large games have to be more mechanically limited due to the potential for abuse. This points to an interesting difference between video game and tabletop design.
The few times ive DM’ed something, i basicly allowed 3pp content on the basis of one simple rule : If you pick something 3pp, you acknowledge and agree that i reserve the right to tweak anything about it that becomes silly. Modus operanti is to let it fly once and then tweak it to not clog the session midway-throught.
Ive been lucky and my players always agreed to those rules and some even stepped forward to genuinely help tweak things
But what if I like silly? Check this mess out:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/flaming-crab-games-paladin-archetypes/dashing-hero/
Dashing rescue allows you to pick up you horse and move it out of danger. Or your elephant for that matter. Now there’s a build-around!
I think the first thing any gm worth his/her salt should do is take such player modifications and apply them to npc’s/villains/rivals in such a way as to affect the game & demonstrate that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Players frequently try modifications for the express purpose of overbalancing a game in their favor, rather than for purposes of character/plot/setting. It seems to me that no tabletop system prevents players from building/realizing a “unique” character concept either systematically or through gameplay, but a gm needs to answer to the needs of his/her game as well as to the the players.
This is what I do regularly. I tend to allow Path of War and Spherecasting as a rule, and Psionics if it makes sense. Then, I rebuild enemies to also have those powers.
I also have enemies act intelligently. If the PCs have been slaughtering their minions, but one or two escaped at some point, or they said too much to an attractive NPC, maybe next time the BBEG has prepared specifically for their powers. They have a lot of mind control? Undead attack. They have a caster who does 60 fire damage a round? Elemental Flux user with the Immunity or Resistance stances.
My most blatant example is actually from a friend’s campaign. I was playing an Artisan from Drop Dead Studios (Makes of Spheres). It’s basically the PF conversion of the 3.5 Artificer from Eberron.
I was crafting stuff incredibly fast, making golems and a mecha-suit like iron man, etc. My only real limiting factors were money and time.
So the GM made an NPC with the same class, only she was higher level and 5000 years old. So she had created absolutely incredible things, dozens to hundreds of constructs, and a flying fortress the size of a mountain.
So yeah, that kinda balanced it.
The thing about third party content is the intended setting and game style. If you want a game where the heroes are basically the fantasy Avengers, a godling isn’t really so far off par, as long as every player knows that’s the kind of thing that’s being allowed. After all, no one complains that Hulk and Hawkeye are on the same team, and Hulk is nearly immortal whereas Clint has a bow.
Same with setting. If you’re playing in Feyrun, that Harper Scion multiclass option from x-y-games that everyone is talking about works fine. But drop that in Steve’s homebrew mana-pocalypse campaign and the class ability of having a network of spies behind you gets a bit OP.
Basically, case by case basis, just as a shout out to players though, do your DM a favor and try to think if the material you’re presenting even fits the setting. Otherwise… Why present it? One of those “if you have to ask…” scenarios. On the DM side… Make sure your players know what kind of game they will play. Nothing sucks more than building an ice mage and then realizing your DM is running “The Caverns of the Ice Djinn” or something.
Good advice all ’round. Unless of course you wanted to play “Caverns of the Ice Djinn” on hard mode. 😛
In 3.X games, we usually have enough work preventing the stupid cheese Wizards has put out from flying to even consider somebody else’s take on it. In Pathfinder, there is a small whitelist of 3PPs that we allow on a regular basis (pretty sure it’s just Dreamscarred Press, Pathfinder’s purveyor of psionics and martial power at this point), and anything else is allowed on a case-by-case basis.
Now see, this is why I like writing up adventures rather than player options. We included the latter with these guys…
https://adventureaweek.com/?s=star+system+set&post_type=product
…but wound up making that decision since you can buy them à la carte or as a six-card bundle. If you don’t want the mechanical bits you don’t have to take ’em. That reflects a lot of my own tastes: I want setting and adventure when I buy 3rd party. That’s because I’ll only buy new content when I’m a GM with a campaign idea in mind, not when I’m a player shopping for new character ideas.
Like Paizo knows how to make a balanced product; they practically thumb their nose at it. WotC though did give us the closest to a balanced product we could get in 4th edition…which we hated.
These systems are just so damn complex! A video game has the advantage of data to mine, but when all you’ve got is message boards full of discordant outrage… I guess that’s why I default to GM being the control valve. It’s the only level of control granular enough to please all comers.
After the release of Spheres of Power, I have refused to go back to using the outdated vancian spellcasting system; and now with the release of Spheres of Might, I have made it a houserule that players must use classes or archetypes from said sources.
Ofcourse it is very convenient that SoP and SoM are available on a wiki, which is updated as new content is released.
http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/
Sell me on it a little more. I’ve never played with ’em myself, but remember being intrigued by the whole “finally, you can build a Jedi in Pathfinder” stuff during the Kickstarter. What makes it so appealing for you?
Generally speaking when it comes to D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, a character is most often defined by your class. Because of this, most players and gms instinctively have preconceived notions on who or what your character is from the moment that you say aloud the class you have chosen. You are not a samurai unless you have levels in the samurai class, etc. (Relevant Comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html).
With spheres of power and spheres of might, your character class is actually not very important. You are defined not so much by your class, but by your tradition (casting or martial) and choice of talents (magic or martial). Because of this, you can effectively have your character concept built as early as 1st level (no needing to wait till 15th or 17th level for a specific 8th or 9th level spell).
Ofcourse, it helps if you see just how simple it is build a character concept.
Now you gave the example of Jedi, so lets build one.
1st) Decide where he stands on the martial – caster scale; this determines if he is a low-caster, mid-caster, or high-caster. Low-casters have a casting progression most comparable to the paladin or ranger, while mid-casters are like magus or bard, and high-casters are like clerics and wizards.
– If you chose low-caster, I would suggest using the mageknight spherecasting class. http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/mageknight
– If you chose mid-caster, I would suggest using the symbiat spherecasting class. http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/symbiat
– If you chose high-caster, I would suggest using the incanter spherecasting class. http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/incanter
2nd) Decide what ‘force powers’ he uses. The two most iconic ‘force powers’ in Star Wars are probably ‘jedi mind trick’ and ‘force lift/push’, which translates to the base magic spheres of Mind and Telekinesis.
– Mind sphere grants the following:
1) Lesser Suggestion (at-will, target performs a very simple request to the very best of its ability, no target may be affected more than once per day), or
2) Greater Suggestion (1sp, as lesser suggestion, except that you can make a basic request, and it can be used multiple times on the same target).
*) If you invest further talents into the sphere, you can gain new ways to influence a target (command, confusion, enthrall, fear, etc).
– Telekinesis sphere grants all the following:
1) Basic Telekinesis (at-will, telekinetically lift an unattended object or willing creature within Close range, provided they are small enough),
2) Bludgeon (at-will, throw of telekinetically lifted object),
3) Catch (at-will, stop a projectile or thrown object from dealing damage telekinetically),
4) Hostile Lift (1sp, telekinetically lift an unwilling creature, provided they are small enough), and
5) Sustained Force (1sp, maintain telekinesis for 1 minute per caster level without concentration)
*) Investing further into this sphere can increase the size of creatures/objects you can lift, the range that you may use telekinesis, or grant new telekinesis powers such as Flight or Force Choke.
If you chose the mageknight class, you get 3 spheres/talents at LEVEL 1. This means that you can gain all the abilities listed above, and ONE more sphere or talent of your choice.
If you chose the symbiat class, you get the Mind and Telekinesis spheres for FREE at LEVEL 1. In addition, you get TWO more spheres/talents of your choice.
If you chose the incanter class, you get upto 5 spheres/talents at LEVEL 1. This means that you can gain all the listed abilities above, and THREE more spheres/talents of your choice.
Now as for the Jedi casting tradition, there isn’t one pre-written for those who what to play a Jedi; However, when it comes to the Jedi, using the force is defined more by what isn’t required than what is required. So lets go through the list of general drawbacks one by one and find out what is appropriate for Jedi to have.
Addictive Casting – No. Using the force is not addictive.
Center of Power – No. Force users don’t possess a physical feature that may be “sundered” to destroy their link with the force.
Coy Caster – No. Force users generally have no problem “performing” infront of others (although, I would personally allow a player to take this, if for comedic purposes).
Diagram Magic – No. Jedi do not need to draw out an “alchemical circle” to use the force (although this is very much appropriate for a Full-Metal Alchemist character).
Draining Casting – Maybe. Jedi do not universally draw magic from themselves to use the force (although it may be appropriate for Dark-force users).
Emotional Casting – Maybe. Light-force users may sometimes be unable to use the force while emotionally compromised, while Dark-force users may thrive on it.
Extended Casting – Maybe. While not universal, some Jedi require more time to use the force.
Focus Casting – No. Jedi do not require holding a wand or holy symbol to use the force.
Galvanized – No. Jedi do not require holding a lightsaber or laser-gun to use the force.
Magical Signs – No. Using the force does not cause magic lights, sounds, smells, etc to suddenly appear; using the force is generally subtle, and unnoticeable to the untrained eye.
Material Casting – No. Jedi do not require rare and exotic material components to use the force.
Mental Focus – Yes. Jedi need to be mentally focused to use the force.
Painful Magic – No. Jedi do not suffer pain whenever they use the force.
Prepared Caster – No. Jedi do not require preparing specific force powers each day.
Rigorous Concentration – Maybe. While not universal, some Jedi have more difficulty than others when i comes to using the force.
Skilled Casting – No. Jedi do not use the force through the forging of an object, performing an instrument, or making a sale.
Somatic Casting – No. Jedi are generally able to use force powers regardless of how immobilized they have become; Force powers do not require delicate hand gestures.
Strenuous – Maybe. Jedi may very well be mentally or physically taxed when using the force, which may hamper their ability to use multiple force powers in a single round.
Verbal Casting – No. Jedi do not require speaking arcane or divine words of power to use the force.
Wild Magic – No. Jedi do not generally use the force and have some random strange effect occur.
So looking at the general drawbacks above, it looks like we have a definite Mental Focus (and possibly any of the following: Draining, Emotional, Extended, Rigorous, and Strenuous).
To recap, in SoP regardless of what casting progression you have, you can have a character who can: use Jedi-mind-tricks, bludgeon others with objects, and telekinetically stopping projectiles from damaging you; and for most of these, there is no limit to how many you can do each day (i.e. no 5-minute adventuring day); Most importantly, this is a 1st level character; imagine the Jedi at 5th level!
Spheres of Power can also be used to create a variety of other character concepts, such as John Constantine: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21664219&postcount=9
Thanks for taking the time!
I personally appreciate that level of granular control, but I have concerns for my less design-oriented friends. Do you find that the system is very user-friendly for newer players? And can you have a sphere caster in the same game as a standard class? It seems a little front-loaded compared to traditional character classes.
Do I find that the system is very user-friendly for newer players?
Spheres of Power is VERY easy to learn; the rules for using the system are less than Two Pages long (in large font). The names of all the different spheres are very intuitive, allowing players to find what they want to accomplish at ease (spread out over 50 pages).
Compare this the the vancian spellcasting system in the Core Rulebook, which has Fourteen Pages devoted to spellcasting rules, and One Hundred and Thirty Pages devoted to individual spells. Oh and the font size is smaller in the Core Rulebook aswell.
One thing I should state, however, is that Spheres of Power/Might is easiest when the player already has a theme or character concept in mind. For example, a character who is a fire mage will probably want to invest their talents in the Destruction and Nature spheres (fire package), while a mage who is a master of space and time will probably invest their talents into the Time and Warp spheres.
Players who don’t have a clear theme in mind when they make their character will have a harder time; there are 20 magical spheres, each tied to a specific theme, without much overlap; and while a character can play a generalist, the character will generally be all the worse for it (Spheres of Power rewards people for playing themed caster’s over generalists).
TLDR; Does the player have a clear cut concept/theme in mind for their character? If yes, I would suggest Spheres of Power/Might; If the answer is no, I would suggest against it.
Can you have a sphere caster in the same game as a standard class? It seems a little front-loaded compared to traditional character classes.
Yes, you can have both a spherecaster and vancian spellcaster in the same party. Although you should be aware of a couple things.
1st) a themed SoP character will most certainly outshine any themed traditional caster. (You want to play a level 1 shapeshifter? In SoP, it is as easy as investing a couple talents in the Alteration sphere. In vancian, you are limited to just a couple spells: Disguise Self, which is actually just an illusion, not a polymorph effect; Enlarge Person, and Reduce Person).
2nd) a generalist SoP character will most certainly be outshone by any traditional caster. (Like a traditional sorcerer, a SoP is stuck with whatever spheres he chooses at character creation/level up, and unlike a sorcerer a spherecaster doest get to trade out spheres/talents at 4th level and subsequent levels thereafter. In vancian, a traditional caster may have only a couple spell slots, but may each day choose spells that may very well be relevant for the situation.)
3rd) a Spherecaster (unless they are ENTIRELY devoted to the Conjuration sphere) will have sphere abilities that may be used at-will (don’t require spell points), and thus be able to contribute long after the traditional caster has run out of spell slots.
Something else of note is that spherecasters with a specific theme can perform their theme really well, but entirely lack the ability to do anything other than their theme. With the example of the Jedi build, it would be as if the 1st level caster was only able to cast a limited version of Suggestion and Telekinesis, while lacking the ability to do anything else (unless they invested further into one of their spheres or branched out into other spheres).
Generally speaking, spherecasters are described as “more powerful” than traditional casters at levels 1-5, but only because of their staying power (i.e. no 5-min adventuring day). During levels 6-10, spherecasters and traditional casters are described as being “on equal footing”. Traditional casters at levels 11-15 will be described as more powerful than spherecasters (unless Advanced Talents are allowed to spherecasters). Finally, at levels 16+ a traditional caster is most certainly more powerful than a spherecaster of the same level.
On the GM’s side, it is generally recommended to not bother converting an Adventure Paths or Modules NPC to use spherecasting. This is because you will generally result in either a far weaker or extremely specialized adversary (which may screw with the intended balance of the adventure) or take more time than it is worth.
Best way to remove game imballance is to ban the spells and classes from the phb. Some of the feats and equipment too.
I’ve never been a GM but when I make a character, I stay away from 3rd party stuff because I want to be able to bring any of my characters to a game without any trouble. The only exception is my Swordsmith, which is a Fighter archetype by Drop Dead Studios. This was because I thought the theme was really cool. She could make her own weapon and then go right out and bust heads with it.
I did make 2 homebrew races of my own. One is the flying dragonborn I mentioned before, and the other is an elf-orc hybrid. In both cases, I carefully went over each feature to make sure they were fairly balanced. I got feedback from various forums to help me out.
The only thing Paizo is “vigorous” about when it comes to playtesting is ignoring any results they don’t like.
I gather that you weren’t pleased with 2e.
My point is that the financial stability to make those play tests at all is something that smaller companies with smaller staffs often lack.
I think what I want out of 3PP is some sort of proof of playtesting, that it actually does work in the wild. It takes effort to read a class beginning to end, suss out if there’s any glaring errors that make it unusable, and then try to grasp the balance implications.
I really miss /r/BoH5e, which has a very visible review process that made it clear whatever homebrew it was was being strenuously tested for quality. The new resource ( https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/wiki/list ) is technically updated but it doesn’t make the criticisms visible, which makes it harder to know what all went into those endorsements or how the material changed over time in response to criticism.
The Pugilist ( https://www.dmsguild.com/product/184921/the-Pugilist-Class ) is a personal favorite of mine, and it was featured for quite a while on /r/BoH5e. It’s clearly gone through revisions in response to actual playtesting and is clearly fleshed out with a good sense of how its mechanics actually interact with the game.
Having proof of that testing is what really gave me the confidence as a GM to just say “yes” to it knowing it’s worked before, and I wish more 3PP stuff would show that process. Without it, I have to try to guess whether something will be a problem, and I only have so much time and energy to expend puzzling that out with a player breathing down my shoulder, and God help me if there’s several players who all want something third party.
I am somewhat open to consider 3rd party material, but will reject 90% of it. By and large, if it exists to give rules and numbers to something that could simply be represented with a reinterpretation of existing rules, I reject it.
I am sceptical of much third party material as being inherently imbalanced towards being more powerful than original property options (though certainly not all are). But to be honest, Wizards are guilt of releasing some grossly misconceived and imbalanced character options too, such as (in 5e) the Shepherd Druid and the Bladesinger, and – the one I hate with the fire of a thousand suns – the Hexblade Warlock.
Everyone can make the mistake of throwing together something cool without thinking how it compares to other options, and TPM is not uniquely guilty.
My bottom line is to keep an open mind and always consider, but consider sceptically.
…
It is another discussion, but I am, however, very open to discussing one-off variations to rules on a character by character basis. For example, I had a fire genasi druid whom I allowed to wild shape into an elemental at cost of both wild shape slots, once she reached an appropriate level. And my players know that the DM is happy to giveth, but if he finds he hath been hoodwinked, he will find means to taketh away.
How do you decide if something is OP without playtesting it?
I like my games pure, like my food and drinks. No 3rd party homebrew/wiki classes allowed, they are yucky.
First-party stuff is good and all, but kinda bland. It has to fit every game, and a substantial portion of every character (or at least party). Take 5e—it has what, twelve or thirteen base classes in all WotC material? That means that about half to a third are showing up in every no-homebrew campaign. Sure, subclasses add diversity, but the subclasses for any given class are built on the same foundation, from the same framework.
Third-party stuff can be specific. It can be unique, because the designer doesn’t need every gaming group to strongly consider buying the book, and anyone who uses homebrew is going to have so many options that it doesn’t matter if they only use this option once.
Maybe it’s just me, but I like novelty and I like my characters’ mechanics to match their fluff, both because of my personal game design beliefs and because my character’s fluff (or at least personality and such) tends to drift towards whatever they actually do in a campaign.
Well, my party really like homebrew stuff and I admit it if I can look at tje with enough time to figure out some things and do basic maths. Also to be fair, even though there are some OP things in some pages (I’m talking about the infamous DnDwiki), the big dogs also do some pretty unbalanced things in official (ejem vanilla ranger) and specially if we talk about playtest stuff ( mystic class and oath of heroism pali subclass)