Hi!

I was curious how much other people change lore/mechanics/limit character options etc in your campaigns? Or does the community "mostly" stick with Faerun per the baseline 5E books, lore, and options?

If you do use homebrew, how deep do your changes go? How much do you make full rewrites, partial with stuff like the lore/minor mechanical changes, or stick with what's there mechanically, and change up the lore (or just ignore the lore, and just verbally telling the player how their character fits into the world post creation?

I use whatever home brew I can get my hands on but I filter through it. And I use official lore and lore from specific authors like any Eberron designers

I make up my own stuff for lore. I limit mechanics or character options to suit the lore (mostly I don't have to change much) or maybe once in a while overrule the book on something I think is stupid or illogical. For instance, I think changing cantrips once every 4 levels is ridiculous... I allow 1 cantrip change upon each level-up.

Lore... I detest the default lore of D&D, and use practically none of it. I consider FR one of the worst fantasy settings I've ever seen and want nothing to do with it.

I never liked FR very much, so I found a different setting I liked better forever ago. That setting is not currently supported, but I keep updating it from edition to edition for myself. Then I rearrange half of that as homebrew with different continents etc. I also added a bunch of races as options for PCs, some of them are now official, but others are not. I also added subraces that didn’t exist before too. Now with this edition I have a number of homebrewed subclasses, spells, basically everything.

Quote from BioWizard >>

I make up my own stuff for lore. I limit mechanics or character options to suit the lore (mostly I don't have to change much) or maybe once in a while overrule the book on something I think is stupid or illogical. For instance, I think changing cantrips once every 4 levels is ridiculous... I allow 1 cantrip change upon each level-up.

 I run my campaigns similarly. I set them in my homebrew world, but keep most of the mechanics the same. I enjoy making homebrew subclasses, spells, monsters, and magic items, though. They really help make your setting more lifelike.

I haven't used FR or really any published setting since 2nd edition. Even then, I ignored the lore, mostly because I couldn't bother trying to remember if, according to the book, the mayor of whatever town was secretly a harper working against the blacksmith who was secretly a Zhent. And I wasn't even going to go down the rabbit hole of reading a novel and changing my game based on what happened in it. Basically, I used FR as really pretty maps and made up my own world around them. The only other published setting I used was Dark Sun, but again, I ignored the lore and made up my own stories in the setting.

Beyond that, I'd wager everyone homebrews at least a little. From big things like making up full character classes to smaller things like not worrying about if the PCs can actually carry all the gold they just found in the dungeon.

I think homebrew as a word in the game is overused.  I don't consider lore departures or campaign settings "homebrew."  I consider them "original," "derisive" "departures" of "DM created."  When I take a published adventure, and change the plot, add new elements or basically run in a different, direction, I don't consider that homebrew.  I consider that a mix of creative additons and departures.  Thinking differently or outside the box on story isn't homebrew.  

For me homebrew has to have something game mechanicals involved.  The RAW say X but at our table we do Y.  Or the RAW gives you these options, and you have those plus these additional options at this table.  Not factoring in encumbrance to me isn't homebrew, it's just part of the sliding scale of realism that's available in RAW.  

So all that said, when I used to play as a kid we generally played in worlds created at the table instead of what was usually available in a boxed set.  These days, I don't have time to build whole worlds or even whole adventures so I rely on published settings and adventures, but usually make substantial departures from them before we start playing.

Spells, classes, races, items, I design some, but I like in the present day how we can mine the community.  For me it's a deliberative act and requires assessment as to impact on the game, etc.  Really just like any official or third party published supplemental material.

Rules, generally I see homebrew (though I prefer "house") rules doing two things or moving in two opposite trajectories centered from the RAW.  One way simplifies or "speeds" up the game, the other makes things crunchier and puts more "work" into the game.  The Mercer healing potion bonus action is a streamlining to make combat resolve quicker.  Compounding an attack, like a smite, with intimidation checks to discourage other combatants from pressing on enriches or crunches the game a bit more.  And I play both ends depending on the needs of the game (both what my players want and "how much time do we want to spend doing this" considerations).  Also, I'm not always consistent and like to not so much homebrew but experiment.  As in "RAW says, this but what do you all think if it we try it this way instead" proposed to the table.  If there's disagreement from the rules departure we play as is, but my group tends to like to try things in different ways so they're usually more open.  If an experiment goes particularly well, we shelve it as homebrew.  

I thank everyone for their responses, as it was something I was curious about. And it is a multifaceted question. I completely rewrote the races found in my setting, so I have home-brewed every one of them. I test out a LOT of house rules, as well. I also have what I call "prestige" classes as that idea from older editions best replicates the feel for spending resources to learn this different, lost type of magic, but there doesn't need or even desire to be a full class for it. Think, circle magics, where you can have very specific protection circles, summoning circles, transmutation circles, all kinds of stuff that doesn't lend itself to being a spell, and while the effects are often more permanent, they also have the drawbacks of being more costly, easily disrupted, and are all around different. There are vestiges left over in the form of magic circle, which is very generalized protection circle, and teleportation circles, which are rare, but are still maintained by hermetic studies at very high level. My prestige classes only go to level 5, have no ASI benefits, and have requirements to gain, but does give you very tangible benefits.

Short version, I use tons of home brew, though I try to stick with the time tested mechanics as much as possible that doesn't mess with the feel I am trying to achieve for this particular campaign/setting.

I use a mix of official rules, "epic house rules"(unofficial rules I found in articles), and things I made up.

I limit homebrew extremely. Unless it's strictly fluff or I carefully approve it, I don't do homebrew for anything other than monsters (just because I know some of my players metagame and while I don't want to punish it too much, I also want to keep encounters interesting- I usually just change spell lists, add or subtract features, or apply templates so that creatures are modified, not necessarily harder or easier unless I'm creating a BBEG).

I didn't care about homebrew very much for a long time, but I've become very interested in mechanical balance in 5th edition- it seems like 5e, for better or worse, is mostly balanced (with some jarring exceptions). Homebrew can mess with that balance. I've seen situations where a DM gave a character an absolutely broken item or feature or spell and suddenly everyone else is sidelined. I've also seen situations where a DM has been way too strict with flavor and creativity and ruined a player's experience. I take a middle approach- if you want to write things (as long as it's consistent with the world) as being text and flavor different but mechanically identical, I have no problem with homebrew. If you want your character, spells, and items to look unique, that's cool- it encourages you to engage with your character. But if it's going to detract from someone else's experience at the table by stealing the spotlight, invalidating someone else's class features (something that a lot of homebrew seems to do, because the grass is greener on the other side but people don't want to actually compromise their primary class progression by multiclassing), or messing up the collective storytelling by being a distraction or breaking immersion for other players, I won't allow it.

I want players to have fun, but sometimes homebrew is a neat idea that ends up not helping the table have fun. There are so many tools and resources in official content, and while I recognize that creativity should be rewarded, it can't be in a way that makes it impossible for other players to compete or that makes it so people don't know what to expect. Just like I wouldn't toss a vampire that has none of its vulnerabilities but all of its bonuses at the party, because it takes away the player's tools to deal with an encounter, I wouldn't allow players to have something that negates their vulnerabilities but gives them benefits that lets them ignore the mechanics. Ultimately, D&D is about storytelling, and I want to encourage that with careful, controlled homebrew- just because you can think of something doesn't mean it exists or you can make it in a setting, but if it furthers the story and makes the players engage better, I'm happy to work with people, as long as the expectation of balance and respect for other players' unique abilities is there.

Quote from SquireZed >>

I limit homebrew extremely. Unless it's strictly fluff or I carefully approve it, I don't do homebrew for anything other than monsters (just because I know some of my players metagame and while I don't want to punish it too much, I also want to keep encounters interesting- I usually just change spell lists, add or subtract features, or apply templates so that creatures are modified, not necessarily harder or easier unless I'm creating a BBEG).

I didn't care about homebrew very much for a long time, but I've become very interested in mechanical balance in 5th edition- it seems like 5e, for better or worse, is mostly balanced (with some jarring exceptions). Homebrew can mess with that balance. I've seen situations where a DM gave a character an absolutely broken item or feature or spell and suddenly everyone else is sidelined. I've also seen situations where a DM has been way too strict with flavor and creativity and ruined a player's experience. I take a middle approach- if you want to write things (as long as it's consistent with the world) as being text and flavor different but mechanically identical, I have no problem with homebrew. If you want your character, spells, and items to look unique, that's cool- it encourages you to engage with your character. But if it's going to detract from someone else's experience at the table by stealing the spotlight, invalidating someone else's class features (something that a lot of homebrew seems to do, because the grass is greener on the other side but people don't want to actually compromise their primary class progression by multiclassing), or messing up the collective storytelling by being a distraction or breaking immersion for other players, I won't allow it.

I want players to have fun, but sometimes homebrew is a neat idea that ends up not helping the table have fun. There are so many tools and resources in official content, and while I recognize that creativity should be rewarded, it can't be in a way that makes it impossible for other players to compete or that makes it so people don't know what to expect. Just like I wouldn't toss a vampire that has none of its vulnerabilities but all of its bonuses at the party, because it takes away the player's tools to deal with an encounter, I wouldn't allow players to have something that negates their vulnerabilities but gives them benefits that lets them ignore the mechanics. Ultimately, D&D is about storytelling, and I want to encourage that with careful, controlled homebrew- just because you can think of something doesn't mean it exists or you can make it in a setting, but if it furthers the story and makes the players engage better, I'm happy to work with people, as long as the expectation of balance and respect for other players' unique abilities is there.

I agree with this wholeheartedly! I will work with a player to put in something that balances well with what is already in the game if someone wants to do so. Generally, the homebrew I do are changes designed to produce a particular feel in the game. I don't even consider "trappings" (if you have ever played Savage Worlds) to even be homebrew, I allow those visual customizations as a matter of course, as everyone will generally do anything involving art with their own artistic flair, so it simply makes sense that it would work that way! I will agree when building changes, you should be careful not to encroach on niches, and I personally am very cognizant of what I am doing when I do so.