In my campaign setting, resurrection is not as easy as it is in base D&D. Before any of my players reach a point where they can learn the spell, I reworked Revivify for my world. Wanting to share the changes with the world, I submitted it for public homebrew, and was denied for it being a "minor alteration of a spell". Which made me wonder, how different does something have to be to be considered different. For Revivify, I changed the casting time, gave it a duration, increased the allowed time from death, added in exhaustion for the Caster, and added madness for the revived character. I think all that remains of the original spell is the name, the level, returning with 1 hit point, can't save old age orend limbs, and the material component.
I can change the name of course, but I'm not sure if they're considering the spell itself as not being changed enough. As it is, I only didn't rename the spell to make it obvious to my players that it is meant to replace Revivify. But I don't want to waste someone's time reviewing the spell again and potentially getting locked out of the system if it's not as simple as the name being the same.
Some homebrew is best left private. If it's not something completely new it takes a lot of changes to an item/spell/monster for it to pass as different enough for publication. We definitely prefer originality to modification.
I guess my ultimate point is how far removed does it have to be? I'd argue that functionally, what I created is so far removed from its base it is its own spell, and only inspired by the original. And chances are, that will be the case for most home brew things. It's not like I just changed the spells damage type and called it something new. It was changed on a functional level
They key thing to consider is - is the submitted homebrew sufficiently new or different that other people will see it and find it useful, or is it just a variation on existing content, that has been tailored for your own campaign?
I would say the example you've given fits into the latter category - unless someone is running your campaign, it's not something that's likely to be useful to people.
Whilst the moderator team are NOT there to check homebrew submissions for quality, there are several gating decisions during review:
Is this a copy of an existing spell/monster/item from the current compendium (this includes being similar to existing content)?
Does it follow some basic content rules (certain themes are prohibited, such as ****, torture etc)?
Does it contain copyrighted material (text or images) that the user is unlikely to be the copyright owner?
I'd like to think the changes I made would make the spell beneficial to any campaign that wants to make resurrection more difficult. I'd also like to think it was altered way more than something like this, which is basically revivify with a longer time frame, but was approved. It's unfortunate there is no way to communicate with the person who rejected the spell in the first place to figure out what could be changed to allow it.
I am all for more difficult resurrection (in the past I went so far as to ban resurrection completely, short of divine intervention), so your version sounds like something that could interest me greatly... without getting too much into specifics, could you maybe give me an idea of what you changed and the direction you took for your modification(s)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Also, this brings up a very interesting option (for me at least) and suggestion for the devs: what about giving the possibility of creating home-brew versions of spells, available only to those in possession of the original resource the original spell is presented, and allow the use of one or the other version?
Elaborating and exemplifying a bit: Revivify, PHB spell -> Erylia_DM home-brews his version, starting from the original spell and making his changes but leaving the same name, tags etc. Here comes me, DDB PHB owner, browsing the home-brew spells I come across Erylia_DM's version of revivify and love it, I add it to my collection of home-brew material and then I can decide to use this version instead of the PHB one when I create a new campaign.
Another option (or integration to this) might be to have a sort of separate section of the home-brew section for variations of official spells, in order to make the browsing easier and avoid people not really interested in that king of home-brew content to have to skim through it when looking for something completely original and new.
(Just throwing ideas around)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
It's unfortunate there is no way to communicate with the person who rejected the spell in the first place to figure out what could be changed to allow it.
I agree entirely and this is something we want to improve on, because it's also difficult for the moderators to give meaningful feedback to the homebrew creators.
I am all for more difficult resurrection (in the past I went so far as to ban resurrection completely, short of divine intervention), so your version sounds like something that could interest me greatly... without getting too much into specifics, could you maybe give me an idea of what you changed and the direction you took for your modification(s)?
So far, I've only worked out Revivify. I kind of outlined the changes in the OP, but here's a better break down of the modifications.
Usable for 24 hours
Cast time of 1 minute
Only lasts for 24 hours (then you need actual resurrection)
Caster takes 1 level of exhaustion
Target is afflicted with short or long term madness (DM's choice based on circumstances of death)
The spell itself is tuned a bit to my lore, which is that bringing someone back from the dead is a LOT of work (exhaustion for the caster), and that having died and been brought back messes with your head a bit. I plan for things to escalate a bit at higher levels too, to the point where true resurrection can kill the caster, depending on how messed up the person was. I know this kind of thing doesn't mesh with a lot of people's opinions and expectations for D&D, buy my setting isn't meant to be as high fantasy, a bit grittier, and a little less "magic can solve everything"
I am all for more difficult resurrection (in the past I went so far as to ban resurrection completely, short of divine intervention), so your version sounds like something that could interest me greatly... without getting too much into specifics, could you maybe give me an idea of what you changed and the direction you took for your modification(s)?
So far, I've only worked out Revivify. I kind of outlined the changes in the OP, but here's a better break down of the modifications.
Usable for 24 hours
Cast time of 1 minute
Only lasts for 24 hours (then you need actual resurrection)
Caster takes 1 level of exhaustion
Target is afflicted with short or long term madness (DM's choice based on circumstances of death)
The spell itself is tuned a bit to my lore, which is that bringing someone back from the dead is a LOT of work (exhaustion for the caster), and that having died and been brought back messes with your head a bit. I plan for things to escalate a bit at higher levels too, to the point where true resurrection can kill the caster, depending on how messed up the person was. I know this kind of thing doesn't mesh with a lot of people's opinions and expectations for D&D, buy my setting isn't meant to be as high fantasy, a bit grittier, and a little less "magic can solve everything"
Real nice! I like the idea of the revivified getting a madness due to the process (makes a lot of sense to me) and the drawback seems adequate. Good work! Looking forward to hear about the other resurrection spells variants in the future :)
(guess this is the version you use in your podcast, right? I'd have to check your stuff out)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
It's not there yet. because no one is high enough to cast it yet, but yes, it was written for my podcast. This thread also got someone to give the spell another look and tell me what needs to be changed, so it will hopefully be available as a public homebrew spell in the next day! But thanks for the interest in my show!
I'm with Erylia_DM on this and other homebrew submissions. As long as it isn't copyright infringement on existing WotC IP that's not in the free basic rules, there should be no subjective consideration of "usefulness" by the moderator, otherwise, that one person is deciding what is "useful" for everyone else.
As long as it's not infringing, it doesn't hurt DDB to make it public. Users will either like it and use it in their own campaign, or they won't.
Maybe add a way for users to vote up or down on homebrew items, thus helping to insure the cream rises to the top.
Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, mods have NO business making subjective decisions about what I might find useful. (Unless you can't tell, this makes my blood boil. It costs DDB nothing, so don't be tyrannical about it!)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Also, this brings up a very interesting option (for me at least) and suggestion for the devs: what about giving the possibility of creating home-brew versions of spells, available only to those in possession of the original resource the original spell is presented, and allow the use of one or the other version?
Elaborating and exemplifying a bit: Revivify, PHB spell -> Erylia_DM home-brews his version, starting from the original spell and making his changes but leaving the same name, tags etc. Here comes me, DDB PHB owner, browsing the home-brew spells I come across Erylia_DM's version of revivify and love it, I add it to my collection of home-brew material and then I can decide to use this version instead of the PHB one when I create a new campaign.
Another option (or integration to this) might be to have a sort of separate section of the home-brew section for variations of official spells, in order to make the browsing easier and avoid people not really interested in that king of home-brew content to have to skim through it when looking for something completely original and new.
(Just throwing ideas around)
That would be amazing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Apologies if I mislead you into thinking that considering "usefulness" was part of the moderation process - it is not.
As I posted above, the considerations are:
Is this a copy of an existing spell/monster/item from the current compendium (this includes being similar to existing content)?
Does it follow some basic content rules (certain themes are prohibited, such as ****, torture etc)?
Does it contain copyrighted material (text or images) that the user is unlikely to be the copyright owner?
Where there ARE issues with a homebrew creator, the moderator team are more than happy to discuss why a specific homebrew was rejected and what can be done to prevent further rejection.
Open question - do you believe that having 137 homebrew spells called magic missile would be in people's best interest, with most of them having minor changes such as the amount of damage or range, or specifying a colour of the missiles?
Apologies if I mislead you into thinking that considering "usefulness" was part of the moderation process - it is not.
As I posted above, the considerations are:
Is this a copy of an existing spell/monster/item from the current compendium (this includes being similar to existing content)?
Does it follow some basic content rules (certain themes are prohibited, such as ****, torture etc)?
Does it contain copyrighted material (text or images) that the user is unlikely to be the copyright owner?
Where there ARE issues with a homebrew creator, the moderator team are more than happy to discuss why a specific homebrew was rejected and what can be done to prevent further rejection.
Open question - do you believe that having 137 homebrew spells called magic missile would be in people's best interest, with most of them having minor changes such as the amount of damage or range?
Do you believe that having a CR 0 awakened tree with Multiattack named Lifferlas is in people's best interest?
"They key thing to consider is - is the submitted homebrew sufficiently new or different that other people will see it and find it useful, or is it just a variation on existing content, that has been tailored for your own campaign?"
Your words not mine.
Certainly, as I said in my post, homebrew submissions that infringe on IP should not be allowed. So the question is, would a spell like Revivify, but named something different be okay? Maybe someone would find a variation of Revivify not currently in the books useful. You were the one who suggested the OP's spell would not be useful to anyone outside of her/his campaign.
"I would say the example you've given fits into the latter category - unless someone is running your campaign, it's not something that's likely to be useful to people."
THAT is a subjective assessment of the utility of that spell to other people.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of "questionable" homebrew monsters that were approved by moderators. Apparently these are considered "worthy" of DDB Homebrew inclusion.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/27187-adult-pink-dragon - A dragon that takes humanoid slaves and forces them to procreate with it (I believe this constitutes ****?). "Pink dragons delight in forcing nearby communities to supply them with prisoners via threats. These prisoners are kept in the lair and used as slaves and as breeding stock"
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/21155-amber-golem - Amber Golem. I didn't compare the stats and abilities, but there is already an Amber Golem that sounds very similar in the WotC adventure Curse of Strahd, which is not free.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/30775-apprentice-necromancer - Apprentice Necromancer. There is already an Apprentice Mage and a Necromancer in Volo's Guide. I tried to submit my own variation on the Necromancer at a lower level, since the one in the book is CR 9 and some DMs might want a lower-level necromancer, but mine was rejected, even after I changed the name.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/33878-bump-of-chicken - Bump of Chicken. A demonic chicken. Seriously. Apparently this is more useful and of interest to others outside of a single person's campaign, but a modified Revivify spell isn't?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/26013-te-pe-ke-the-thorough-slayer-god-of-fatal - Te-Pe-Ke, The Thorough Slayer, God of Fatal... This one is my favourite. I can't believe this one was approved, but I guess there's no accounting for taste. Clearly a mod thought this was useful. "Te-Pe-Ke started life as Lases, God of Total Party Kills, but was renamed and retitled with the creation of the Pun Pantheon. "
I could go on, but I won't. There are thousands of homebrew monsters in there. A LOT of them are named NPC versions of monsters from the MM, dragons, and liches, etc. I wouldn't doubt that there are IP infringing items.
In other words, I question the sanctity of the mod review process and it's "subjective" application of the rules.
I can appreciate the sheer amount of submissions that they have to sift through can make the process pretty repetitive. What they really should do is have two sections of public homebrew. A featured section that adheres to more stringent requirements. This section (using moderators example) could include maybe 3 variations on Magic Missile. Whichever 3 the mods like the best. There should then be a filterable section where anything that doesn't violate the below rules are posted. Sure it will be cluttered, but if it's filterable let the players decide what homebrew they are interested in.
Does it follow some basic content rules (certain themes are prohibited, such as ****, torture etc)?
Does it contain copyrighted material (text or images) that the user is unlikely to be the copyright owner?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/27187-adult-pink-dragon - A dragon that takes humanoid slaves and forces them to procreate with it (I believe this constitutes ****?). "Pink dragons delight in forcing nearby communities to supply them with prisoners via threats. These prisoners are kept in the lair and used as slaves and as breeding stock"
I wanted to thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have taken care of this one personally. Please remember, there's only a few mods, and we get thousands of submissions each day. Some of us watch Homebrew more than others do, and we are only human. It is impossible for us to catch every single unacceptable item, or to know every spell from every book. Things will slip through the cracks from time to time. If you see something questionable, please feel free to PM any of us, and we can take care of anything that might be deemed unacceptable.
In my campaign setting, resurrection is not as easy as it is in base D&D. Before any of my players reach a point where they can learn the spell, I reworked Revivify for my world. Wanting to share the changes with the world, I submitted it for public homebrew, and was denied for it being a "minor alteration of a spell". Which made me wonder, how different does something have to be to be considered different. For Revivify, I changed the casting time, gave it a duration, increased the allowed time from death, added in exhaustion for the Caster, and added madness for the revived character. I think all that remains of the original spell is the name, the level, returning with 1 hit point, can't save old age orend limbs, and the material component.
I can change the name of course, but I'm not sure if they're considering the spell itself as not being changed enough. As it is, I only didn't rename the spell to make it obvious to my players that it is meant to replace Revivify. But I don't want to waste someone's time reviewing the spell again and potentially getting locked out of the system if it's not as simple as the name being the same.
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
Some homebrew is best left private. If it's not something completely new it takes a lot of changes to an item/spell/monster for it to pass as different enough for publication. We definitely prefer originality to modification.
Site Rules & Guidelines --- Focused Feedback Mega Threads --- Staff Quotes --- Homebrew Tutorial --- Pricing FAQ
Please feel free to message either Sorce or another moderator if you have any concerns.
I guess my ultimate point is how far removed does it have to be? I'd argue that functionally, what I created is so far removed from its base it is its own spell, and only inspired by the original. And chances are, that will be the case for most home brew things. It's not like I just changed the spells damage type and called it something new. It was changed on a functional level
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
They key thing to consider is - is the submitted homebrew sufficiently new or different that other people will see it and find it useful, or is it just a variation on existing content, that has been tailored for your own campaign?
I would say the example you've given fits into the latter category - unless someone is running your campaign, it's not something that's likely to be useful to people.
Whilst the moderator team are NOT there to check homebrew submissions for quality, there are several gating decisions during review:
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I'd like to think the changes I made would make the spell beneficial to any campaign that wants to make resurrection more difficult. I'd also like to think it was altered way more than something like this, which is basically revivify with a longer time frame, but was approved. It's unfortunate there is no way to communicate with the person who rejected the spell in the first place to figure out what could be changed to allow it.
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
I am all for more difficult resurrection (in the past I went so far as to ban resurrection completely, short of divine intervention), so your version sounds like something that could interest me greatly... without getting too much into specifics, could you maybe give me an idea of what you changed and the direction you took for your modification(s)?
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Also, this brings up a very interesting option (for me at least) and suggestion for the devs: what about giving the possibility of creating home-brew versions of spells, available only to those in possession of the original resource the original spell is presented, and allow the use of one or the other version?
Elaborating and exemplifying a bit:
Revivify, PHB spell -> Erylia_DM home-brews his version, starting from the original spell and making his changes but leaving the same name, tags etc.
Here comes me, DDB PHB owner, browsing the home-brew spells I come across Erylia_DM's version of revivify and love it, I add it to my collection of home-brew material and then I can decide to use this version instead of the PHB one when I create a new campaign.
Another option (or integration to this) might be to have a sort of separate section of the home-brew section for variations of official spells, in order to make the browsing easier and avoid people not really interested in that king of home-brew content to have to skim through it when looking for something completely original and new.
(Just throwing ideas around)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
So far, I've only worked out Revivify. I kind of outlined the changes in the OP, but here's a better break down of the modifications.
The spell itself is tuned a bit to my lore, which is that bringing someone back from the dead is a LOT of work (exhaustion for the caster), and that having died and been brought back messes with your head a bit. I plan for things to escalate a bit at higher levels too, to the point where true resurrection can kill the caster, depending on how messed up the person was. I know this kind of thing doesn't mesh with a lot of people's opinions and expectations for D&D, buy my setting isn't meant to be as high fantasy, a bit grittier, and a little less "magic can solve everything"
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
Good work! Looking forward to hear about the other resurrection spells variants in the future :)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
It's not there yet. because no one is high enough to cast it yet, but yes, it was written for my podcast. This thread also got someone to give the spell another look and tell me what needs to be changed, so it will hopefully be available as a public homebrew spell in the next day! But thanks for the interest in my show!
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
I'm with Erylia_DM on this and other homebrew submissions. As long as it isn't copyright infringement on existing WotC IP that's not in the free basic rules, there should be no subjective consideration of "usefulness" by the moderator, otherwise, that one person is deciding what is "useful" for everyone else.
As long as it's not infringing, it doesn't hurt DDB to make it public. Users will either like it and use it in their own campaign, or they won't.
Maybe add a way for users to vote up or down on homebrew items, thus helping to insure the cream rises to the top.
Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, mods have NO business making subjective decisions about what I might find useful. (Unless you can't tell, this makes my blood boil. It costs DDB nothing, so don't be tyrannical about it!)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Apologies if I mislead you into thinking that considering "usefulness" was part of the moderation process - it is not.
As I posted above, the considerations are:
Where there ARE issues with a homebrew creator, the moderator team are more than happy to discuss why a specific homebrew was rejected and what can be done to prevent further rejection.
Open question - do you believe that having 137 homebrew spells called magic missile would be in people's best interest, with most of them having minor changes such as the amount of damage or range, or specifying a colour of the missiles?
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
You'd have to ask the designer of the official book that monster is in.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Nevertheless, it does set a precedent for practically unusable content.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"They key thing to consider is - is the submitted homebrew sufficiently new or different that other people will see it and find it useful, or is it just a variation on existing content, that has been tailored for your own campaign?"
Your words not mine.
Certainly, as I said in my post, homebrew submissions that infringe on IP should not be allowed. So the question is, would a spell like Revivify, but named something different be okay? Maybe someone would find a variation of Revivify not currently in the books useful. You were the one who suggested the OP's spell would not be useful to anyone outside of her/his campaign.
"I would say the example you've given fits into the latter category - unless someone is running your campaign, it's not something that's likely to be useful to people."
THAT is a subjective assessment of the utility of that spell to other people.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of "questionable" homebrew monsters that were approved by moderators. Apparently these are considered "worthy" of DDB Homebrew inclusion.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/27187-adult-pink-dragon - A dragon that takes humanoid slaves and forces them to procreate with it (I believe this constitutes ****?). "Pink dragons delight in forcing nearby communities to supply them with prisoners via threats. These prisoners are kept in the lair and used as slaves and as breeding stock"
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/20145-allard-the-frog - Allard the frog. Don't we already have frogs in the MM?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17895-alumnoch-the-pink-unicorn - Alumnoch the pink unicorn. This one contains full text of a number of spells.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/21155-amber-golem - Amber Golem. I didn't compare the stats and abilities, but there is already an Amber Golem that sounds very similar in the WotC adventure Curse of Strahd, which is not free.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/30775-apprentice-necromancer - Apprentice Necromancer. There is already an Apprentice Mage and a Necromancer in Volo's Guide. I tried to submit my own variation on the Necromancer at a lower level, since the one in the book is CR 9 and some DMs might want a lower-level necromancer, but mine was rejected, even after I changed the name.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/25020-assassin-vine - Assassin Vine. You know, like the one that comes in the official WotC Tomb of Annihilation? That's not free.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/33878-bump-of-chicken - Bump of Chicken. A demonic chicken. Seriously. Apparently this is more useful and of interest to others outside of a single person's campaign, but a modified Revivify spell isn't?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17720-ultima-tarrasque - Ultima Tarrasque. Didn't compare the stats, not sure how close it is to the WotC Tarrasque. Is the WotC Tarrasque considered protected IP?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17543-firbolg - Firbolg. Like from Volo's Guide.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/24270-ysgrove-the-unkillable - Ysgrove The Unkillable. I put this one in because i think it's funny that this Unkilable dragon stats state: "Ysgrove is very fast and stealthy, but can be easily stunned, and damaged."
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/26013-te-pe-ke-the-thorough-slayer-god-of-fatal - Te-Pe-Ke, The Thorough Slayer, God of Fatal... This one is my favourite. I can't believe this one was approved, but I guess there's no accounting for taste. Clearly a mod thought this was useful. "Te-Pe-Ke started life as Lases, God of Total Party Kills, but was renamed and retitled with the creation of the Pun Pantheon. "
I could go on, but I won't. There are thousands of homebrew monsters in there. A LOT of them are named NPC versions of monsters from the MM, dragons, and liches, etc. I wouldn't doubt that there are IP infringing items.
In other words, I question the sanctity of the mod review process and it's "subjective" application of the rules.
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I can appreciate the sheer amount of submissions that they have to sift through can make the process pretty repetitive. What they really should do is have two sections of public homebrew. A featured section that adheres to more stringent requirements. This section (using moderators example) could include maybe 3 variations on Magic Missile. Whichever 3 the mods like the best. There should then be a filterable section where anything that doesn't violate the below rules are posted. Sure it will be cluttered, but if it's filterable let the players decide what homebrew they are interested in.
A dwarf with a canoe on his back? What could go wrong?