My problem with this answer is that we already can make up anything with the Subclasses and it works perfectly fine. If something is not within the core rules already that you want to add, you just put a description in the appropriate box. I've gone so far as making a subclass that replaces every core class feature to make a new base class with functioning features and that works, so it shouldn't be that difficult to make a blank to start with
Because there are enough classes and subclasses to cover all fantasy eventualities :-)
This is the best answer besides the obvious "it's lots of work to add such a feature". Most everything you'd want to create would work better as a subclass. On the DnD reddit-verse you'll see hundreds of "here's my [word for sword]+[word for mage] class! The gish class you've all been waiting for!" homebrew posts. Almost all the classes you'll see there don't need to be their own classes, and would honestly be better as subclasses. Or they just don't fit into the medieval, heroic fantasy vibe DnD 5e tries to capture. Short personal example in the spoiler.
I've had a player join my game once (who then ghosted mid-session) and they asked me if they could use this homebrew class they wanted to play called a soulbinder. Looking back on it it's just some animu shit that wouldn't have fit anyway.
answers like there are enough subclasses to cover all fantasy eventualities. is a major lame duck of a reply if that were the case why bother with home brewing sub classes why bother changing any thing .
as d&d it self says change what you want alter things or make new things till your playing the D&D you want theres no reason we shouldn't be able to homebrew classes especially as home brew content dos not have to public
answers like there are enough subclasses to cover all fantasy eventualities. is a major lame duck of a reply if that were the case why bother with home brewing sub classes why bother changing any thing .
You know lame duck actually has a meaning that has nothing to do with the context you're trying to use it in here, right?
as d&d it self says change what you want alter things or make new things till your playing the D&D you want theres no reason we shouldn't be able to homebrew classes especially as home brew content dos not have to public
"theres no reason we shouldn't be able to" isn't really a statement of fact, but a conclusion predicated on not really understanding the functionality of D&D Beyond and it's main role as a digital enhancement of the official rules, that nevertheless makes allowance for homebrew in a way that can be integrated with that existing toolset. Sure homebrew doesn't have to be public, but it must function within D&D Beyond and building an "open class generator" to me seems prone to instability for obvious reasons if you actually look at how the existing homebrew tools function.
why bother with home brewing sub classes why bother changing any thing
I homebrew subclasses all the time -- new warlock patrons or sorcerer origins, a dragonborn-only monk subclass that gives them new things to do with their breath weapon, a rogue equivalent to ranger's beast master which finally answered the question "If Aladdin starts out as a rogue before multiclassing into genielock, what does that make Abu... ?"
I have never had the desire to create an entirely new class
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I have never had the desire to create an entirely new class
I have been (slowly) hammering away at a homebrewed Psionicist class for over a year now. It would be much further along if I could use the content builder here to do it. (The structure of it helps my process.) That being “said,” I fully understand why the system here doesn’t allow us that functionality.
I seem to remember somewhere, maybe a DDB YouTube video where they said that basically we use the same system to home brew that they do to make everything here, except we don’t have access to all features. If they opened the system up to home brew with all the same tools they have (like for making home brew classes) you could inadvertently change something that could basically break existing classes or just break the site.
That can't be a thing. For one thing because the system is open with all the same tools they have already, just not for full classes, and for another because it'd be a terrible way to have things set up.
See below. If ImaSposta is correct, it is a “thing”, I just didn’t articulate it well enough 😂
I think I understand both sides of this problem. The player and sometimes the DM want to be able to have characters that are very unique and completely them. DDB wants to keep the base class system as pure as possible, as set per rules. For us players, class restrictions often prevent us from creating a dream character that would be the bane of every DM, and for the DM it also prevents them from creating NPC with unique abilities that should destroy our players easily. Homebrew content can get out of hand when placed in the wrong settings. DDB wants to keep the game as DnD and not wander to far from its core values. Thank you it is needed.
What if we took this a different way. Lets ask DDB to create a Common class. Make the features blank for this class so that they can be chosen per level. As well as having proficiency open and available to the class as a choice. Finally they can create sub-classes at level 3 as normal.
The draw back of this class would be a lower hit dice, a 1d6 or 1d8 per level +2 + con All base savings throws and any ability like spell casting or sword fighting needs to be learned at the correct level for the ability. If the Player is building a caster and they want to use the spell Expert Divination, then they must see a mage cast it or have someone teach it to them. Scrolls could be used to learn it as well. If they wanted to learn parry then they could learn it at level 3 from a fighter.
I think this type of setup would work as a sudo homebrew class and would achieve what others want. The only thing that would get messy is sub classes for this class.
When you create a subclass, most of the class already exists. You are not trying to figure out how to balance a new spell system (Warlock), with new abilities (invocations), feats, and main class abilities. Instead you are given about 4-5 special abilities that you replace. You can compare them to the existing powers of existing class and even if you are a power-mad lunatic, it will not be THAT overpowered. If you have a good DM to limit you, you will likely come up with something somewhat reasonable.
But now you come along and want to design a whole new class. I got news for you, your name is not Matt Mercer, Gary Gygax, or Dave Arneson. If you are the new guy that is just as good as them, get a job working for WoTC. Or start your own company.
Creating a whole new class basically means you are doing about 20x the work of creating a new subclass. Whereas before you were making 4 abilities, now you are making 20 different levels worth of abilities. Plus options like Maneuvers, Invocations, Bardic Inspiration, etc. And Saves, armor, skills. And multi-classing rules. This is MUCH MUCH harder. Worse, balancing it is harder. Do you make the base class weaker but give it 5 sub class abilities? Or weaker with 4 stronger subclass abilities? Is your class front loaded, so everyone will take a couple of levels of it and then switch to another class? Did you leave a gaping synergy hole, where a warlock invocation, a wizard spell, or some other feat just gets rid of what you thought was a major limitation. Even if you only create a single subclass for your new class, chances are very likely it will not be properly balanced. It might be over-powered, it might be under-powered, but it will not be balanced. But you really should be making about 3 subclasses. So that is even more work.
Basically, you are a guy that renovated his living room and now thinks he can build an entire house. The monstrosity you build will not be up to code, so to speak.
Classes are not perfect, but if you design your own subclass, it will be good enough to handle 99% of what you need.
For us players, class restrictions often prevent us from creating a dream character that would be the bane of every DM, and for the DM it also prevents them from creating NPC with unique abilities that should destroy our players easily.
Stamping out this kind of adversarial power-gaming nonsense seems like a great reason not to allow homebrew classes, tbh
DMs and players should not be enemies
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But now you come along and want to design a whole new class. I got news for you, your name is not Matt Mercer, Gary Gygax, or Dave Arneson. If you are the new guy that is just as good as them, get a job working for WoTC. Or start your own company.
Easier said than done. I may or may not be as good as the names you dropped, but that’s irrelevant. I’m still designing my own Psionicist class for 5e, and it would be easier with the tools available here for the exact reasons you mentioned elsewhere in your post. Balance.
The system couldn't really handle new mechanics you homebrew. The best they could do is let you print out a list of features without any actual support from the site in implementing them, or let you frankenstein a new class out of parts of existing ones. They would not be able to make it work as well as the system does for the existing content, because they cannot account for things players will come up with. It would be a big undertaking that would likely end in mixed to poor results in the implementation, so not worth the time and effort when they could be working on other things.
There is nothing in my Psionicist class that DDB’s system couldn’t handle with their Modifiers, Options and Actions systems that are already in place. The system really is a lot more robust than people realize. (Trust me, I use it. A lot.)
Sure DDB will be part of WotC soon, but I don’t think previously they could allow for homebrew classes because of their deal with WotC. I could be wrong.
But even when DDB is part of WotC what would be the incentive to allow class homebrew. How is it putting more money in Wizards pocket? It sounds like a good idea to allow homebrew classes. I just don’t see the upside for doing so for WotC, considering how broad of scope a class builder would have to actually be to allow near infinite variations versus giving players a builder that fails to meet expectations.
There is nothing in my Psionicist class that DDB’s system couldn’t handle with their Options and Actions systems that are already in place. The system really is a lot more robust than people realize. (Trust me, I use it. A lot.)
I trust you when you say this. And the system may very well work for what you have in mind. The problem arises when someone else has a class idea the system can’t handle.
Just throwing it out ther, and I have no idea if this would be easy or hard to do with the builder since I don’t use it much, but what if I wanted to make a character that only uses cantrips and has access to all of them. But they also have warlock like invocations to alter them. Like 50 options available over 20 levels of the class. Some unique, some on a “tree” like feats of 3E so if you want a certain “cantrip modifier” at level 17 it requires you to have 4 other “cantrip modifiers” from earlier levels.
there are so many variables that cannot be accounted for it just seems like it would be difficult to implement well when someone comes out with some outlandish class with a system unlike anything in D&D
Most of that is totally doable, and depending on how you intend for the trees to be set up that may well be entirely doable too. Modifying the cantrips, not so much, but just like anything else the system cannot do, including it as plain text and letting the players manage those things directly on the character sheet is always an option. The only thing that would really be sticky would be if someone wanted to adjust spell save DCs for specific cantrips, that’s not currently possible in the system.
I trust you when you say this. And the system may very well work for what you have in mind. The problem arises when someone else has a class idea the system can’t handle.
No different from a subclass idea that the system can't handle. It's just work, but it's a bunch of work for things that most people aren't going to care very much about.
I really want to create to full classes and a number of subclasses for them: "Summoner" and "Professional"
Summoners would interact almost exclusively through summoned creatures, both in and out of combat. Subclasses would be based off the type of creatures that they summon, and would include:
Elementalist (basically a Pokémon trainer, eventually gaining access to six animal-like "elementals" of Fire, Cold, Lightning, Poison, Psychic, and Necrotic typing)
Psionic (essentially a Green Lantern, able to summon thought-constructs, which gain in diversity and complexity as they level up)
Fay (able to summon aid from the Feywild)
Necrotic (basically Ghostbusters if they then used their ghosts in battle)
Infernal (able to summon new and unique 'devils' based off of classic demonology, such as Beelzebub and Asmodeus)
Abyssal (summons creatures inspired by Lovecraftian horror)
Celestial (has heavenly aid from Angels and the like)
Professionals would translate more modern professions into setting appropriate equivalents. They'd focus on skills over combat, more so than even Rogues or Bards. The class itself wouldn't have much shared content, with most of the mechanics and flavor in the subclasses, including:
No worries. Had to scroll up a bit, but I get the intended context now.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My problem with this answer is that we already can make up anything with the Subclasses and it works perfectly fine. If something is not within the core rules already that you want to add, you just put a description in the appropriate box. I've gone so far as making a subclass that replaces every core class feature to make a new base class with functioning features and that works, so it shouldn't be that difficult to make a blank to start with
This is the best answer besides the obvious "it's lots of work to add such a feature". Most everything you'd want to create would work better as a subclass. On the DnD reddit-verse you'll see hundreds of "here's my [word for sword]+[word for mage] class! The gish class you've all been waiting for!" homebrew posts. Almost all the classes you'll see there don't need to be their own classes, and would honestly be better as subclasses. Or they just don't fit into the medieval, heroic fantasy vibe DnD 5e tries to capture. Short personal example in the spoiler.
I've had a player join my game once (who then ghosted mid-session) and they asked me if they could use this homebrew class they wanted to play called a soulbinder. Looking back on it it's just some animu shit that wouldn't have fit anyway.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
answers like there are enough subclasses to cover all fantasy eventualities. is a major lame duck of a reply if that were the case why bother with home brewing sub classes why bother changing any thing .
as d&d it self says change what you want alter things or make new things till your playing the D&D you want theres no reason we shouldn't be able to homebrew classes especially as home brew content dos not have to public
You know lame duck actually has a meaning that has nothing to do with the context you're trying to use it in here, right?
"theres no reason we shouldn't be able to" isn't really a statement of fact, but a conclusion predicated on not really understanding the functionality of D&D Beyond and it's main role as a digital enhancement of the official rules, that nevertheless makes allowance for homebrew in a way that can be integrated with that existing toolset. Sure homebrew doesn't have to be public, but it must function within D&D Beyond and building an "open class generator" to me seems prone to instability for obvious reasons if you actually look at how the existing homebrew tools function.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I homebrew subclasses all the time -- new warlock patrons or sorcerer origins, a dragonborn-only monk subclass that gives them new things to do with their breath weapon, a rogue equivalent to ranger's beast master which finally answered the question "If Aladdin starts out as a rogue before multiclassing into genielock, what does that make Abu... ?"
I have never had the desire to create an entirely new class
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The answer can be found in General FAQ #s 1 & 10: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/131411-a-homebrewers-how-to-faq)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have been (slowly) hammering away at a homebrewed Psionicist class for over a year now. It would be much further along if I could use the content builder here to do it. (The structure of it helps my process.) That being “said,” I fully understand why the system here doesn’t allow us that functionality.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
See below. If ImaSposta is correct, it is a “thing”, I just didn’t articulate it well enough 😂
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think I understand both sides of this problem. The player and sometimes the DM want to be able to have characters that are very unique and completely them. DDB wants to keep the base class system as pure as possible, as set per rules. For us players, class restrictions often prevent us from creating a dream character that would be the bane of every DM, and for the DM it also prevents them from creating NPC with unique abilities that should destroy our players easily. Homebrew content can get out of hand when placed in the wrong settings. DDB wants to keep the game as DnD and not wander to far from its core values. Thank you it is needed.
What if we took this a different way. Lets ask DDB to create a Common class. Make the features blank for this class so that they can be chosen per level. As well as having proficiency open and available to the class as a choice. Finally they can create sub-classes at level 3 as normal.
The draw back of this class would be a lower hit dice, a 1d6 or 1d8 per level +2 + con
All base savings throws and any ability like spell casting or sword fighting needs to be learned at the correct level for the ability. If the Player is building a caster and they want to use the spell Expert Divination, then they must see a mage cast it or have someone teach it to them. Scrolls could be used to learn it as well. If they wanted to learn parry then they could learn it at level 3 from a fighter.
I think this type of setup would work as a sudo homebrew class and would achieve what others want. The only thing that would get messy is sub classes for this class.
The problem is balance and difficulty,.
When you create a subclass, most of the class already exists. You are not trying to figure out how to balance a new spell system (Warlock), with new abilities (invocations), feats, and main class abilities. Instead you are given about 4-5 special abilities that you replace. You can compare them to the existing powers of existing class and even if you are a power-mad lunatic, it will not be THAT overpowered. If you have a good DM to limit you, you will likely come up with something somewhat reasonable.
But now you come along and want to design a whole new class. I got news for you, your name is not Matt Mercer, Gary Gygax, or Dave Arneson. If you are the new guy that is just as good as them, get a job working for WoTC. Or start your own company.
Creating a whole new class basically means you are doing about 20x the work of creating a new subclass. Whereas before you were making 4 abilities, now you are making 20 different levels worth of abilities. Plus options like Maneuvers, Invocations, Bardic Inspiration, etc. And Saves, armor, skills. And multi-classing rules. This is MUCH MUCH harder. Worse, balancing it is harder. Do you make the base class weaker but give it 5 sub class abilities? Or weaker with 4 stronger subclass abilities? Is your class front loaded, so everyone will take a couple of levels of it and then switch to another class? Did you leave a gaping synergy hole, where a warlock invocation, a wizard spell, or some other feat just gets rid of what you thought was a major limitation. Even if you only create a single subclass for your new class, chances are very likely it will not be properly balanced. It might be over-powered, it might be under-powered, but it will not be balanced. But you really should be making about 3 subclasses. So that is even more work.
Basically, you are a guy that renovated his living room and now thinks he can build an entire house. The monstrosity you build will not be up to code, so to speak.
Classes are not perfect, but if you design your own subclass, it will be good enough to handle 99% of what you need.
Stamping out this kind of adversarial power-gaming nonsense seems like a great reason not to allow homebrew classes, tbh
DMs and players should not be enemies
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Easier said than done. I may or may not be as good as the names you dropped, but that’s irrelevant. I’m still designing my own Psionicist class for 5e, and it would be easier with the tools available here for the exact reasons you mentioned elsewhere in your post. Balance.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The system couldn't really handle new mechanics you homebrew. The best they could do is let you print out a list of features without any actual support from the site in implementing them, or let you frankenstein a new class out of parts of existing ones. They would not be able to make it work as well as the system does for the existing content, because they cannot account for things players will come up with. It would be a big undertaking that would likely end in mixed to poor results in the implementation, so not worth the time and effort when they could be working on other things.
There is nothing in my Psionicist class that DDB’s system couldn’t handle with their Modifiers, Options and Actions systems that are already in place. The system really is a lot more robust than people realize. (Trust me, I use it. A lot.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sure DDB will be part of WotC soon, but I don’t think previously they could allow for homebrew classes because of their deal with WotC. I could be wrong.
But even when DDB is part of WotC what would be the incentive to allow class homebrew. How is it putting more money in Wizards pocket? It sounds like a good idea to allow homebrew classes. I just don’t see the upside for doing so for WotC, considering how broad of scope a class builder would have to actually be to allow near infinite variations versus giving players a builder that fails to meet expectations.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I trust you when you say this. And the system may very well work for what you have in mind. The problem arises when someone else has a class idea the system can’t handle.
Just throwing it out ther, and I have no idea if this would be easy or hard to do with the builder since I don’t use it much, but what if I wanted to make a character that only uses cantrips and has access to all of them. But they also have warlock like invocations to alter them. Like 50 options available over 20 levels of the class. Some unique, some on a “tree” like feats of 3E so if you want a certain “cantrip modifier” at level 17 it requires you to have 4 other “cantrip modifiers” from earlier levels.
there are so many variables that cannot be accounted for it just seems like it would be difficult to implement well when someone comes out with some outlandish class with a system unlike anything in D&D
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Most of that is totally doable, and depending on how you intend for the trees to be set up that may well be entirely doable too. Modifying the cantrips, not so much, but just like anything else the system cannot do, including it as plain text and letting the players manage those things directly on the character sheet is always an option. The only thing that would really be sticky would be if someone wanted to adjust spell save DCs for specific cantrips, that’s not currently possible in the system.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No different from a subclass idea that the system can't handle. It's just work, but it's a bunch of work for things that most people aren't going to care very much about.
I really want to create to full classes and a number of subclasses for them: "Summoner" and "Professional"
Summoners would interact almost exclusively through summoned creatures, both in and out of combat. Subclasses would be based off the type of creatures that they summon, and would include:
Professionals would translate more modern professions into setting appropriate equivalents. They'd focus on skills over combat, more so than even Rogues or Bards. The class itself wouldn't have much shared content, with most of the mechanics and flavor in the subclasses, including: