I DM a group of five in my hometown, and have played a few online games by now.
However, I have encountered (what I find to be) an odd barrier when I try to involve myself in online campaigns. The barrier in question is RAW (Rules-As-Written) and DMs who are very concerned with staying within the confines of book X, Y and/or Z.
The reason I find this attitude strange is that as a Dungeon Master, what is so appealing about D&D is the creative process. There's all the well-known aspects of improvisation like thinking on your feet, keeping the game in a "tone" you and your players enjoy, introducing interesting and unexpected story elements and challenges.
And of course, there is the entire process of the world building - both the pre-planned, fleshed out world concept you have designed, and the improvised details that add character to the "current" scenarios. Or thieving and adapting side plots from reddit when you don't have time to prep properly. :eyes:
It is therefore baffling to me that DMs firmly set their foot down when players wish to use creative license when interpreting their characters, when they want to customize background features and feats to suit the character concept better, or when they want to exchange certain proficiencies they deem irrelevant, or want to design spells for their character.
Or when they just want to try some new playtest content that they're hyped about and that inspired them.
As a Dungeon Master who is quite happy to allow players to use UA Psionic Spells or to try out the UA Way of Mercy Monk subclass --- or to even let my players build items that can be used in the campaign, I don't understand putting those limits there.
UA is usually very well balanced, in my experience. And as long as the homebrew content is reasonable or comparable to existing RAW-content - why not? If something isn't working, then I'm sure it can be revised.
It is something that I have been frustrated with when I have tried to get involved in campaigns as a player. Like, all I want is the UA Performer feat, not to turn my PC into a Transformer.
Specifically for homebrew, it often can be unbalanced. Some DM's don't want to spend hours evaluating and playtesting homebrew before they allow it in their game. For UA, it sorta the same deal. It might be more balanced, but the DM doesn't want to play a game, find out something is broken, and force a player to change character. Balancing homebrew is a lot of work, and some DM's don't have the time to do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
@JoeltheWalrus But is that not painting a worst case scenario, where the additional content skews the balance of the game to the point where all challenges can easily be overcome?
I suppose a follow-up question is: What constitutes a "broken" character feature? Is an UA or homebrew addition "broken" if it is Good?
The campaign I'm currently running is a very heavily modified, expanded version of Curse of Strahd. I have both a Cleric and a Paladin in my group, and they have definite advantages in that setting. I don't find it particularly hard to adapt and take those advantages into consideration when I build my combat encounters - but I also don't want to take away their chance to Turn Undead or Smite with glee, even if it's costing me a couple of zombies.
Additionally, I suppose - D&D is less of a numbers game and more of a creative process to me in particular.
It basically boils down to balance. While I personally don't give a two shakes of a rat's arse about it, some people are very concerned about having a very balanced game, and they don't want anything that's not official.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
Definitely agree with a lot of what you said but Joel, wrapped up most of the reasoning why. Many DMs just don't want to worry about things not well tested. Which I do find silly sometimes because there are so many "Official" comps that can break the game just as badly as 1 odd home brew item that no one really looked at well before allowing it.
It seems many DMs spend hours crafting encounters and don't want them to possibly be either too difficult or too easily finished, but I always look at it as the requirement for an encounter is people having fun. I agree that means the DM should have fun too, but I guess its the DM style that makes some not as keen on exploring that unkown territory of UA and homebrew.
Mean while I'm over here tweaking everything so my players can play the exact type of PC they want, I've created an entire subclass soley so one player can a Baker Artificer, I've taken the stuff from the Kalashtar and created an entire history to it that fits in my HB world so one of my PCs can explore the Realm of Dreams, even though it is not a thing in basic D&D. But the difference is every time, I am sculpting or redefining themes of races, items, classes, or my own HB world - I am having fun. So that makes allowing HB and UA something I will do, integrating them into the game is fun for me.
The basic problem is that a lot of UA and the vast majority of homebrew is trash (unbalanced, unusable, incoherent, or just dumb), and even the stuff that's good is Yet More Stuff To Worry About, and thus as a DM you have the choice of examining every bit of UA/homebrew to decide whether you want to allow it in your game, or issuing a blanket prohibition, and it's easier to do the latter.
I allow Homebrew in my campaign as long as I’m the one that brewed it, is that weird? Most of my players are happy with normal classes and subclasses but particularly with items I’ve made them all myself (sometimes following ideas from players for what they’d like).
At the beginning of a campaign I’m not sure I’d be comfortable players homebrewing their races/classes without a lot of input from me (which would make a lot of extra DM work too).
Specifically for homebrew, it often can be unbalanced. Some DM's don't want to spend hours evaluating and playtesting homebrew before they allow it in their game. For UA, it sorta the same deal. It might be more balanced, but the DM doesn't want to play a game, find out something is broken, and force a player to change character. Balancing homebrew is a lot of work, and some DM's don't have the time to do that.
I second this. A lot of UA and homebrew have abilities that need amending before it's as balanced as some other classes and end in power creep. (And that's how we end up with a broken subclass like Hexblade, but that's a whole different rant...) There have been a lot of times that I've read an UA article and thought "Wow, this is underwhelming trash." or "Wow, this is way overpowered. They should get that ability a lot less than that!". I have not been impressed with much of the unearthed arcana that's come out post-Xanathar's. And as DM I am busy enough prepping the game. I don't want to waste further time fixing these subclasses for use in my games so that they meet the same balance standards that WoTC should have followed before even posting the article.
When it comes to online play it trends more towards adventurers league style of being rules as written because it is a good fall-back for both the players and the DM. It avoids the rule lawyering of some players, and it also provides the players with protection against the kinds of DMs that think their job is to kill the players rather than help tell a story and act as the world's referee. Having started D&D 5E through adventurers league I personally prefer to run (mostly) rules as written game when I homebrew. I also like to prefer my players to use standard array or point buy because it puts everyone on a roughly even footing from the start. Anything else after that is up to them.
As far as backgrounds, I dont see any problem in customization as long as they follow the base rules for customization; 2 proficiencies, 2 item/game/instrument skills OR 2 languages, OR 1 of each. Custom background features are A-OK in my world as long as they are within the same spirit as the primary backgrounds. For instance, I'm not going to allow someone to come in and say "I'm the prince of this kingdom and can control a whole army!" but instead guide them to the noble background feature and work in a way to play up their nobility. (actual conversation I had with a new player who wanted to command an army at level 1.)
I never understood why some DMs try to exert so much control over their players' characters, however. They shouldn't choose their character backstories nor should they choose their character actions. If they want to go all the way as one class, great. If someone wants to multiclass then go right ahead. But again, I stick to the RAW guidelines so I request that people follow those restrictions. No Barbarians multiclassing sorcerer and paladin when their charisma is -2 for instance.
Item power creep is also the other reason for limiting homebrew content. The same player that wanted to be an almighty prince at my table is also constantly asking me if he can craft the equivalent of very rare and legendary items from random mundane crap they find in the dungeons. He's level 3 now. As the DM I know the kind of game I would like to run, the kinds of challenges that I want to present my characters with so I am very leery on allowing outside items or spells into the game that would tip the scales in such a way that everything is too easy for the players.
Custom feats and spells I'm all for if they fill a gap that isn't there. For the case of spells I'd work with the players in a homebrew setting where they can spend time creating and perfecting the use of the spell. The more they do it, the better they become at it to the point where they're eventually able to cast those spells in 1 action/1 bonus action, etc. I'm all for players taking feats instead of only ASIs. I love the shenanigans that they allow. But as I said before, it needs to be something that fills a gap in the books. There are plenty of feats already, so what does that custom feat do different?
@JoeltheWalrus But is that not painting a worst case scenario, where the additional content skews the balance of the game to the point where all challenges can easily be overcome?
I suppose a follow-up question is: What constitutes a "broken" character feature? Is an UA or homebrew addition "broken" if it is Good?
The campaign I'm currently running is a very heavily modified, expanded version of Curse of Strahd. I have both a Cleric and a Paladin in my group, and they have definite advantages in that setting. I don't find it particularly hard to adapt and take those advantages into consideration when I build my combat encounters - but I also don't want to take away their chance to Turn Undead or Smite with glee, even if it's costing me a couple of zombies.
Additionally, I suppose - D&D is less of a numbers game and more of a creative process to me in particular.
Yes, this is a worst case scenario. However, alot of homebrew is not high quality. There is certainly a tonne of good homebrew out there, stuff that I would love to use in my games. But for every good homebrew, there is probably ten "tarrasque as a pc." I have a much higher opinion of UA, and allow most of it at my table. I was speaking for some DM's who don't want to have to playtest homebrew. Also, the type of game you are playing can change things. When I DM for a bunch of my first-time dnd player classmates at a games club, I am definitely not allowing homebrew. After a couple sessions when everyone has a hang of the game, I might allow some of it through.
It basically boils down to balance. While I personally don't give a two shakes of a rat's arse about it, some people are very concerned about having a very balanced game, and they don't want anything that's not official.
I prefer having a balanced game so some players don't steal the spotlight. If I am playing with people I know well, then I would be more amicable to allowing homebrew.
Just to some up my point some Dm's might not use homebrew becuase:
It isn't always balanced
It might be too weird or silly for you game
The homebrew might not exist in the world your playing
Homebrew can be very fun, it just requires more time and effort for a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Opening up the Pandora's box of homebrew - even homebrew that you create - means introducing a need to constantly evaluate your gameplay, think about it critically, and be willing to adapt and change things on the fly to "fine tune" the ruleset to be give your table the game play experience you ( collectively ) want.
If you allow homebrew, and don't do that, then you can inadvertently let in some rule change that will knock your game play experience askew.
If you do that, then it really shouldn't matter where the homebrew comes from ( you or someone else ), since the obviously errant nonsense is going to get adjusted out anyways.
However ...
Many DMs don't want to put in that kind of analysis and work into their game. It's much easier to go with the official rules as given. That's perfectly OK. Not all DMs are, want to be, or should be, systems analysts and game designers. And since they don't want to take the risk of throwing their gameplay askew, they stick with RAW.
Many Players don't like the idea of the rules being fluid and changing. They like knowing that the rules as they can read in the book is what they experience in the game. Your Rules Lawyers ( not a pejorative ) really don't want the "law" changing on them.
Personally, I love tinkering with the rule set to get the game experience results that I and my table want. It's tricky though since it requires that a) all Players are completely clear as to what the changes to the rules are ( they can't make meaningful game choices if they don't know how the world/system works ), b) all Players are completely happy with those changes, and want a compatible game play experience. Communication, discussion, and knowing what your Players want ( and/or being able to trust them to tell you ), are essential once you open up this can of bees.
It's rewarding, and can lead to a much more customized, personalized, and fun game for your table - but it's a lot of work to be able to do well. For many people playing D&D the effort isn't worth the result.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Also it's a lot more to learn. Oh you want to be this new race I've never heard of, with a new class AND subclass... sure let me learn that as well as the 1001 other things I need to remember.
I think this is one of the main turn-offs for a lot of DMs. There are just too many rules to keep them all in your head, and the more books you add, the more there is to look up. So I have total sympathy for any DM who restricts options to a subset. If a DM said, "PHB, DMG, and MM and nothing else," that alone represents a massive amount to know and adjudicate. Let alone all the options in the other books. Let alone even more so the UA content, much of which has not been play-tested thoroughly enough to ensure it is not completely broken.
That said, I tend to allow most homebrew that won't break my world. And I am using UA with 2 of 4 characters because one player wants it, and the other, though new, I thought would enjoy the UA variant better and she seems to. My goal is for players to have fun. BUT... if they venture off into a bunch of stuff I know nothing about, my DMing is going to take a serious hit, which will also hamper fun.
I think more so with online, since that is what the OP asked about... you are more likely playing with strangers or with people you don't know as well. A DM may be more willing to let his or her best friend run hog-wild, knowing the best friend can be trusted not to break the game. You don't necessarily know that about people you just met.
Optional, homebrew, and UA rules can seem like an enormous "black box" to the DM and for some DMs, it's better not to open that box and let them out.
The other thing I will say is, as an experienced player, not just DM, of many games, not just D&D... although having more options can be fun and exciting and help you get nearer to some character concepts, working within a smaller set of constraints can also really help you grow your creativity as you work on building a character from what's available.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm slightly confused by some of this too, especially in light of the Power of DNDBeyond. Adding in a UA Class is easy enough to try out and experience how they play. All of us at the table can look up the mechanics and abilities if we are in the same campaign. So I have two theories why in this day and age more people aren't trying it.
1 - Adventure League. The system has to be falanced and bair... bah... you know what I mean. To achieve fairness you cannot have unbalanced characters. So it makes sense that Homebrew is out and by similar exclusion, UA which are semi-playtested and released into the wild are also excluded. I get it. I also understand why many DMs use Point Buy or Standard Array for this (aside from it being a rule), because you want everyone to be experiencing the same thing at the table... and there are some small rewards.
2 - Paper Copies. Many of us have lived through a long life of paper copies and have also experienced having a player ask to play some half-fluffed off-the-cuff Artificer while it was in UA status. You go to the work of finding the sheet, printing it out for them while skimming through it. The second session they forgot their sheet and the UA Article. They haven't learned what they could do and assume that they can do more than their abilities allow. And it is a painful road to go back down again... without even thinking that it would all be in DNDBeyond.
So, in part, the Adventure League culture has grown up with 5E and has its hooks into how many of the things are perceived. But also in part because there have been bad experiences in the pas with UA content. I would say there are more reasons... but those stick out to me the most.
I also wonder how many DMs are relying on their players to purchase the Legendary Bundles and share the content versus how many DMs provide it for their players. As the owner of the Sharing in our groups, I find that I am much more willing to have someone ask me to try out a UA character because everything is available to all of them. I just want them to come up with a backstory providing a character concept that I can work into our narrative storylines. In the campaigns where I am a player, I don't see others asking about UA content and when I do, I tend to get a long delay from when I ask to when I either get permission or denial. As UA content can quickly leave DNDBeyond, it can be problematic in a campaign as well... so there may be some that fear that too. Not sure. I always make a copy of the character at a high level so I can have the options later if it does go away, cause I'm pretty sure if you've unlocked it, you can still play with the content until they release an official version of it, at least according to mods on the forums. Regardless, it doesn't take that much effort to put in the options for a Homebrew at that point if it is the better option and both the player and the DM can see them currently active on the DNDBeyond sheet.
TL;DR - I have no idea and it leads to interesting questions in my mind...
For Homebrew, the main problem is that the people that create often have no idea what is balanced and what is not. A prime example of this is the "TrueSight Races". It's a freakin 6th level spell that works for one hour with a 25 gp consumed Material component and some people think it is perfectly OK to give a race that ability always on. They would never have the guts to ask for a SINGLE use of "Disintegrate" as a racial ability, but some they think it's OK to give a 1st level race that ability.
As for not caring about balance, would you let me play with a free use of Disintegrate? Pretty please? Yes, I know everyone else are playing Fifth level human Battlemaster Fighters and I will be the only Half Drow-Half Pixie Wizard of the subclass "Concentrates on 5 spells at a time", but you said you do not care about balance, so it is cool, right?
Balance is not about player vs monster - that can always be fixed by upping the CR. Balance is about having one x level player being able to kill all six of the other x level players without ever taking damage.
Unbalanced games are NEVER fun. Not for the player who is over powered, not for the player who is under powered. The only way unbalanced stuff works is if the DM works extra hard to make sure and give the other players stuff of the same level of unbalance (and then send them up against monsters that have been similarly improved).
As a DM, I love making homebrew in my freetime. Its a great excuse to try my hand at creative writing and game balancing. That being said, I am super cautious about allowing homebrew or UA in my campaigns even if I have looked it over extensively. This is for a few reasons:
1) As has been stated, its more to keep track of. Admittedly, there are still features and spells and such in the PHB I don't know like the back of my hand, so looking up more things isn't a huge deal since Im already doing it with the base mechanics. That being said, I generally prefer when I have those things in front of me and it is easy to access.
2) I worry about balance issues. Even with my own homebrew, I find myself revising and redoing different parts after looking back at it, as my perspective has shifted. I was adamant about not allowing any homebrew when I ran Curse of Strahd simply because I wanted to be able to follow the module as it is written and only have to make minor modifications to the encounters for them to feel balanced. Now that I have moved into a more homebrew setting with the characters, I am being a bit more lenient with homebrew since I can just try to balance around them, but I do still try to limit it to homebrew I have created or that my players have created so that we can work together on editing things or modifying them to reach what we both envision for that subclass/item/feat/etc.
3) I generally don't allow UA because (for the most part) the content released in UA feels more overpowered than underpowered. If I see something I like, I generally hope that a more balanced version will be released in a future book.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello, fellow Dungeon Masters!
I DM a group of five in my hometown, and have played a few online games by now.
However, I have encountered (what I find to be) an odd barrier when I try to involve myself in online campaigns. The barrier in question is RAW (Rules-As-Written) and DMs who are very concerned with staying within the confines of book X, Y and/or Z.
The reason I find this attitude strange is that as a Dungeon Master, what is so appealing about D&D is the creative process. There's all the well-known aspects of improvisation like thinking on your feet, keeping the game in a "tone" you and your players enjoy, introducing interesting and unexpected story elements and challenges.
And of course, there is the entire process of the world building - both the pre-planned, fleshed out world concept you have designed, and the improvised details that add character to the "current" scenarios. Or thieving and adapting side plots from reddit when you don't have time to prep properly. :eyes:
It is therefore baffling to me that DMs firmly set their foot down when players wish to use creative license when interpreting their characters, when they want to customize background features and feats to suit the character concept better, or when they want to exchange certain proficiencies they deem irrelevant, or want to design spells for their character.
Or when they just want to try some new playtest content that they're hyped about and that inspired them.
As a Dungeon Master who is quite happy to allow players to use UA Psionic Spells or to try out the UA Way of Mercy Monk subclass --- or to even let my players build items that can be used in the campaign, I don't understand putting those limits there.
UA is usually very well balanced, in my experience. And as long as the homebrew content is reasonable or comparable to existing RAW-content - why not? If something isn't working, then I'm sure it can be revised.
It is something that I have been frustrated with when I have tried to get involved in campaigns as a player. Like, all I want is the UA Performer feat, not to turn my PC into a Transformer.
JADE OF HIGHGARDEN
Waterdeep: Dragon Heist
Specifically for homebrew, it often can be unbalanced. Some DM's don't want to spend hours evaluating and playtesting homebrew before they allow it in their game. For UA, it sorta the same deal. It might be more balanced, but the DM doesn't want to play a game, find out something is broken, and force a player to change character. Balancing homebrew is a lot of work, and some DM's don't have the time to do that.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
@JoeltheWalrus But is that not painting a worst case scenario, where the additional content skews the balance of the game to the point where all challenges can easily be overcome?
I suppose a follow-up question is: What constitutes a "broken" character feature? Is an UA or homebrew addition "broken" if it is Good?
The campaign I'm currently running is a very heavily modified, expanded version of Curse of Strahd. I have both a Cleric and a Paladin in my group, and they have definite advantages in that setting. I don't find it particularly hard to adapt and take those advantages into consideration when I build my combat encounters - but I also don't want to take away their chance to Turn Undead or Smite with glee, even if it's costing me a couple of zombies.
Additionally, I suppose - D&D is less of a numbers game and more of a creative process to me in particular.
JADE OF HIGHGARDEN
Waterdeep: Dragon Heist
It basically boils down to balance. While I personally don't give a two shakes of a rat's arse about it, some people are very concerned about having a very balanced game, and they don't want anything that's not official.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
Definitely agree with a lot of what you said but Joel, wrapped up most of the reasoning why. Many DMs just don't want to worry about things not well tested. Which I do find silly sometimes because there are so many "Official" comps that can break the game just as badly as 1 odd home brew item that no one really looked at well before allowing it.
It seems many DMs spend hours crafting encounters and don't want them to possibly be either too difficult or too easily finished, but I always look at it as the requirement for an encounter is people having fun. I agree that means the DM should have fun too, but I guess its the DM style that makes some not as keen on exploring that unkown territory of UA and homebrew.
Mean while I'm over here tweaking everything so my players can play the exact type of PC they want, I've created an entire subclass soley so one player can a Baker Artificer, I've taken the stuff from the Kalashtar and created an entire history to it that fits in my HB world so one of my PCs can explore the Realm of Dreams, even though it is not a thing in basic D&D. But the difference is every time, I am sculpting or redefining themes of races, items, classes, or my own HB world - I am having fun. So that makes allowing HB and UA something I will do, integrating them into the game is fun for me.
The basic problem is that a lot of UA and the vast majority of homebrew is trash (unbalanced, unusable, incoherent, or just dumb), and even the stuff that's good is Yet More Stuff To Worry About, and thus as a DM you have the choice of examining every bit of UA/homebrew to decide whether you want to allow it in your game, or issuing a blanket prohibition, and it's easier to do the latter.
I allow Homebrew in my campaign as long as I’m the one that brewed it, is that weird? Most of my players are happy with normal classes and subclasses but particularly with items I’ve made them all myself (sometimes following ideas from players for what they’d like).
At the beginning of a campaign I’m not sure I’d be comfortable players homebrewing their races/classes without a lot of input from me (which would make a lot of extra DM work too).
I second this. A lot of UA and homebrew have abilities that need amending before it's as balanced as some other classes and end in power creep. (And that's how we end up with a broken subclass like Hexblade, but that's a whole different rant...) There have been a lot of times that I've read an UA article and thought "Wow, this is underwhelming trash." or "Wow, this is way overpowered. They should get that ability a lot less than that!". I have not been impressed with much of the unearthed arcana that's come out post-Xanathar's. And as DM I am busy enough prepping the game. I don't want to waste further time fixing these subclasses for use in my games so that they meet the same balance standards that WoTC should have followed before even posting the article.
When it comes to online play it trends more towards adventurers league style of being rules as written because it is a good fall-back for both the players and the DM. It avoids the rule lawyering of some players, and it also provides the players with protection against the kinds of DMs that think their job is to kill the players rather than help tell a story and act as the world's referee. Having started D&D 5E through adventurers league I personally prefer to run (mostly) rules as written game when I homebrew. I also like to prefer my players to use standard array or point buy because it puts everyone on a roughly even footing from the start. Anything else after that is up to them.
As far as backgrounds, I dont see any problem in customization as long as they follow the base rules for customization; 2 proficiencies, 2 item/game/instrument skills OR 2 languages, OR 1 of each. Custom background features are A-OK in my world as long as they are within the same spirit as the primary backgrounds. For instance, I'm not going to allow someone to come in and say "I'm the prince of this kingdom and can control a whole army!" but instead guide them to the noble background feature and work in a way to play up their nobility. (actual conversation I had with a new player who wanted to command an army at level 1.)
I never understood why some DMs try to exert so much control over their players' characters, however. They shouldn't choose their character backstories nor should they choose their character actions. If they want to go all the way as one class, great. If someone wants to multiclass then go right ahead. But again, I stick to the RAW guidelines so I request that people follow those restrictions. No Barbarians multiclassing sorcerer and paladin when their charisma is -2 for instance.
Item power creep is also the other reason for limiting homebrew content. The same player that wanted to be an almighty prince at my table is also constantly asking me if he can craft the equivalent of very rare and legendary items from random mundane crap they find in the dungeons. He's level 3 now. As the DM I know the kind of game I would like to run, the kinds of challenges that I want to present my characters with so I am very leery on allowing outside items or spells into the game that would tip the scales in such a way that everything is too easy for the players.
Custom feats and spells I'm all for if they fill a gap that isn't there. For the case of spells I'd work with the players in a homebrew setting where they can spend time creating and perfecting the use of the spell. The more they do it, the better they become at it to the point where they're eventually able to cast those spells in 1 action/1 bonus action, etc. I'm all for players taking feats instead of only ASIs. I love the shenanigans that they allow. But as I said before, it needs to be something that fills a gap in the books. There are plenty of feats already, so what does that custom feat do different?
Yes, this is a worst case scenario. However, alot of homebrew is not high quality. There is certainly a tonne of good homebrew out there, stuff that I would love to use in my games. But for every good homebrew, there is probably ten "tarrasque as a pc." I have a much higher opinion of UA, and allow most of it at my table. I was speaking for some DM's who don't want to have to playtest homebrew. Also, the type of game you are playing can change things. When I DM for a bunch of my first-time dnd player classmates at a games club, I am definitely not allowing homebrew. After a couple sessions when everyone has a hang of the game, I might allow some of it through.
I prefer having a balanced game so some players don't steal the spotlight. If I am playing with people I know well, then I would be more amicable to allowing homebrew.
Just to some up my point some Dm's might not use homebrew becuase:
Homebrew can be very fun, it just requires more time and effort for a game.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Opening up the Pandora's box of homebrew - even homebrew that you create - means introducing a need to constantly evaluate your gameplay, think about it critically, and be willing to adapt and change things on the fly to "fine tune" the ruleset to be give your table the game play experience you ( collectively ) want.
If you allow homebrew, and don't do that, then you can inadvertently let in some rule change that will knock your game play experience askew.
If you do that, then it really shouldn't matter where the homebrew comes from ( you or someone else ), since the obviously errant nonsense is going to get adjusted out anyways.
However ...
Many DMs don't want to put in that kind of analysis and work into their game. It's much easier to go with the official rules as given. That's perfectly OK. Not all DMs are, want to be, or should be, systems analysts and game designers. And since they don't want to take the risk of throwing their gameplay askew, they stick with RAW.
Many Players don't like the idea of the rules being fluid and changing. They like knowing that the rules as they can read in the book is what they experience in the game. Your Rules Lawyers ( not a pejorative ) really don't want the "law" changing on them.
Personally, I love tinkering with the rule set to get the game experience results that I and my table want. It's tricky though since it requires that a) all Players are completely clear as to what the changes to the rules are ( they can't make meaningful game choices if they don't know how the world/system works ), b) all Players are completely happy with those changes, and want a compatible game play experience. Communication, discussion, and knowing what your Players want ( and/or being able to trust them to tell you ), are essential once you open up this can of bees.
It's rewarding, and can lead to a much more customized, personalized, and fun game for your table - but it's a lot of work to be able to do well. For many people playing D&D the effort isn't worth the result.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think this is one of the main turn-offs for a lot of DMs. There are just too many rules to keep them all in your head, and the more books you add, the more there is to look up. So I have total sympathy for any DM who restricts options to a subset. If a DM said, "PHB, DMG, and MM and nothing else," that alone represents a massive amount to know and adjudicate. Let alone all the options in the other books. Let alone even more so the UA content, much of which has not been play-tested thoroughly enough to ensure it is not completely broken.
That said, I tend to allow most homebrew that won't break my world. And I am using UA with 2 of 4 characters because one player wants it, and the other, though new, I thought would enjoy the UA variant better and she seems to. My goal is for players to have fun. BUT... if they venture off into a bunch of stuff I know nothing about, my DMing is going to take a serious hit, which will also hamper fun.
I think more so with online, since that is what the OP asked about... you are more likely playing with strangers or with people you don't know as well. A DM may be more willing to let his or her best friend run hog-wild, knowing the best friend can be trusted not to break the game. You don't necessarily know that about people you just met.
Optional, homebrew, and UA rules can seem like an enormous "black box" to the DM and for some DMs, it's better not to open that box and let them out.
The other thing I will say is, as an experienced player, not just DM, of many games, not just D&D... although having more options can be fun and exciting and help you get nearer to some character concepts, working within a smaller set of constraints can also really help you grow your creativity as you work on building a character from what's available.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm slightly confused by some of this too, especially in light of the Power of DNDBeyond. Adding in a UA Class is easy enough to try out and experience how they play. All of us at the table can look up the mechanics and abilities if we are in the same campaign. So I have two theories why in this day and age more people aren't trying it.
1 - Adventure League. The system has to be falanced and bair... bah... you know what I mean. To achieve fairness you cannot have unbalanced characters. So it makes sense that Homebrew is out and by similar exclusion, UA which are semi-playtested and released into the wild are also excluded. I get it. I also understand why many DMs use Point Buy or Standard Array for this (aside from it being a rule), because you want everyone to be experiencing the same thing at the table... and there are some small rewards.
2 - Paper Copies. Many of us have lived through a long life of paper copies and have also experienced having a player ask to play some half-fluffed off-the-cuff Artificer while it was in UA status. You go to the work of finding the sheet, printing it out for them while skimming through it. The second session they forgot their sheet and the UA Article. They haven't learned what they could do and assume that they can do more than their abilities allow. And it is a painful road to go back down again... without even thinking that it would all be in DNDBeyond.
So, in part, the Adventure League culture has grown up with 5E and has its hooks into how many of the things are perceived. But also in part because there have been bad experiences in the pas with UA content. I would say there are more reasons... but those stick out to me the most.
I also wonder how many DMs are relying on their players to purchase the Legendary Bundles and share the content versus how many DMs provide it for their players. As the owner of the Sharing in our groups, I find that I am much more willing to have someone ask me to try out a UA character because everything is available to all of them. I just want them to come up with a backstory providing a character concept that I can work into our narrative storylines. In the campaigns where I am a player, I don't see others asking about UA content and when I do, I tend to get a long delay from when I ask to when I either get permission or denial. As UA content can quickly leave DNDBeyond, it can be problematic in a campaign as well... so there may be some that fear that too. Not sure. I always make a copy of the character at a high level so I can have the options later if it does go away, cause I'm pretty sure if you've unlocked it, you can still play with the content until they release an official version of it, at least according to mods on the forums. Regardless, it doesn't take that much effort to put in the options for a Homebrew at that point if it is the better option and both the player and the DM can see them currently active on the DNDBeyond sheet.
TL;DR - I have no idea and it leads to interesting questions in my mind...
For Homebrew, the main problem is that the people that create often have no idea what is balanced and what is not. A prime example of this is the "TrueSight Races". It's a freakin 6th level spell that works for one hour with a 25 gp consumed Material component and some people think it is perfectly OK to give a race that ability always on. They would never have the guts to ask for a SINGLE use of "Disintegrate" as a racial ability, but some they think it's OK to give a 1st level race that ability.
As for not caring about balance, would you let me play with a free use of Disintegrate? Pretty please? Yes, I know everyone else are playing Fifth level human Battlemaster Fighters and I will be the only Half Drow-Half Pixie Wizard of the subclass "Concentrates on 5 spells at a time", but you said you do not care about balance, so it is cool, right?
Balance is not about player vs monster - that can always be fixed by upping the CR. Balance is about having one x level player being able to kill all six of the other x level players without ever taking damage.
Unbalanced games are NEVER fun. Not for the player who is over powered, not for the player who is under powered. The only way unbalanced stuff works is if the DM works extra hard to make sure and give the other players stuff of the same level of unbalance (and then send them up against monsters that have been similarly improved).
As a DM, I love making homebrew in my freetime. Its a great excuse to try my hand at creative writing and game balancing. That being said, I am super cautious about allowing homebrew or UA in my campaigns even if I have looked it over extensively. This is for a few reasons:
1) As has been stated, its more to keep track of. Admittedly, there are still features and spells and such in the PHB I don't know like the back of my hand, so looking up more things isn't a huge deal since Im already doing it with the base mechanics. That being said, I generally prefer when I have those things in front of me and it is easy to access.
2) I worry about balance issues. Even with my own homebrew, I find myself revising and redoing different parts after looking back at it, as my perspective has shifted. I was adamant about not allowing any homebrew when I ran Curse of Strahd simply because I wanted to be able to follow the module as it is written and only have to make minor modifications to the encounters for them to feel balanced. Now that I have moved into a more homebrew setting with the characters, I am being a bit more lenient with homebrew since I can just try to balance around them, but I do still try to limit it to homebrew I have created or that my players have created so that we can work together on editing things or modifying them to reach what we both envision for that subclass/item/feat/etc.
3) I generally don't allow UA because (for the most part) the content released in UA feels more overpowered than underpowered. If I see something I like, I generally hope that a more balanced version will be released in a future book.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!