D&D 5E [5e DM Help] Keeping the lid on....what builds should I NOT allow?

JellMoo said:

Nothing. There's nothing so broken that it will completely demolish play. There are highly effective builds, and some tricky combos that get good results, but nothing so broken that it will completely overshadow the rest of the party (provided they haven't actively tried to gimp themselves).

There just isn't anything as above the curve as a 4e Ranger, or a 3.x CoDzilla.

Side note: There aren't really any BS builds either. Just combos that people think can be fun.

Click to expand...

Nothing that breaks the mechanics of the game (besides some elf warlock sorcerer builds), but when a DM retunes encounters to challenge 1 optimized party member, the other players may feel useless.

Say you have a Great Weapon Master Bear Totem/Champion in the party. between levels 5-10 he is putting out ~70 damage a turn and killing 2 things while resisting everyting. Once per short rest he gets a 120 hp nova round.

Add in things like Cleave and Flanking, and you've got a guy telling other players where they have to stand and which guys they aren't allowed to attack yet.

He might ruin the experience for a Polearm Fighter or a Dual-wielder that is only putting out 25-30 a turn and not getting any kills against enemies that have had their hitpoints maximized to account for the Barbarian's damage.



The risk of builds ruining the play experience is MASSIVELY decreased if you use point buy instead of rolling for stats. Then at least no-one can start with 20 in a main stat and feat choices mean actually sacrificing an important ASI. You don't even need to stick to 27, even a 31 point buy is reasonable. And do NOT use the flanking rule.

The Hierophant said:

As someone new to 5e what are the problems with these builds? What are infinite simulacra?

Click to expand...

Multiple attacks (5-11 attacks a round) +10 damage per attack with a hitratio of 50% or more for GWM/Sharpshooter.

The Sorlock ting is just a lot of damage, very easy build.


The infinite simulacrum thing is you use the spell to clone yourself creating a simulacrum with the wish spell who then clones you creating a simulacrum with the wish spell who then clones you creating a simulacrum with the wish spell who then........

Vulf said:

Nothing that breaks the mechanics of the game (besides some elf warlock sorcerer builds), but when a DM retunes encounters to challenge 1 optimized party member, the other players may feel useless.

Click to expand...

This is exactly it, I don't want anyone to feel bored, or overshadowed. I want to keep (combat) encounters interesting for everyone, including myself.

We have one character that is harder to hit. We have one character that has a lot of HP, takes plenty of punishment. We have several characters that do a decent amount of melee damage. We have one or two characters that can do AOE. At the moment everyone gets to shine a little and that's great, and I get to challenge that as a "block".

So far balance has not been a significant issue, but I don't want it to become one.


At the moment, I'm only considering tamping down Sharpshooter, and then by only a relatively moderate amount.

Pure Wizards, don't allow them

The flanking rule is fine as long as you use it both ways. The party loves it until the horde hits them and everyone is getting hit with 3+ flanking attacks per round, including some grapples, then they rethink the idea rapidly. At early levels this can lead to rapid character death.

It scales well if you use it smartly, a creature with multiple appendages could give itelf flanking by attacking from 2 sides at once at a close in character.

It seems most responses are on the look out for builds that are on the upper end of damage output. I don't have a problem with them in my game so much. I do caution to allow players to play a build that is very sub par. In my opinion the Wild Mage Sorcerer and Elemental monk should be reviewed closely by the DM and player prior to choosing to play them. The same would apply to the Beast Master Ranger and Pact of the Blade Warlock. I've hade a player for all but the Beast Master classes and I've had complaints about all three. The Beast Master has been identified to require a lot of DM input for how the beast runs and a lot of work on clarification of how the pet works.

The Circle of the Land druid may also be a sub par class and path, but I haven't read any feedback regarding that build. I've tried to use it in some optimization builds or even Adventures League builds that I thought about playing, but I ended up deciding to choose a different class and path.

On the upper end of the scale there are things that you may want to consider beyond damage out put. Which in my opinion can be easily adjusted for by increasing the HP of the monsters. The other items to be aware of include the Knowledge cleric with a passive perception of 25+ and a passive Investigation of 20+. If you have one of these characters in your group, you now have a Sherlock Holmes type character; which increases the challenge to the DM to make mysteries.

Another difficult character to work with may also be the speedster monk. I haven't seen it in play at high level, but I imagine it may pose additional challenge to the DM in setting up encounters where range matters.

I'm experimenting with a cleric / sorcerer build that pushes an AC 25 with resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing and mirror image up. This build may not be a problem for the DM as this high AC, resistance, and avoidance costs a decent number of resources to sustain.

Beyond those concerns, I would recommend allowing players to play a build they feel they will have fun with. Keep in mind some players may or may not get jealous of the damage output of another players character. You may have to remind your players that they are jealous of the damage output (when you see it) and to take that into consideration prior to choosing a character path.

More or less, what Cooperjer said. If your party is
* Barb3/Fighter N (Battlemaster, great weapon master, reckless power attacks)
* Wiz N, diviner, control wizard
* C1/Bard N, lore bard, buffer in chief
* Fighter N archer sharpshooter+xbow expert

then that's not a problem. If your party is
* Monk N
* Rogue (thief) N
* Blade Warlock N
* and either of the fighters above...

Well, that's not gonna work so well. The issue is niche protection: if I think I'm a damage dealer, I should do the most damage. If I'm a shadow-monk who thinks he's the damage dealer, that's the issue as much as anything else. The DM can work with it, as long as the shadow-monk who thinks he's the damage dealer actually DOES the most damage ... but it falls apart if someone joins the group and steals your niche.

Similarly, if your Rogue-N is supposed to be the "good at everything" utility player ... the Bard or Wizard built to do that too will make you sad (at higher levels).

The fixes might be to make sure the monk finds the flaming fist-wraps of doom (+1 to +3 to hit and damage, +2d6 fire damage). Or it might be to ask the new guy to not play his Barb/GWM. Depends on how much work you're willing to do as a DM, how you want combats to play out, what type of challenges you find interesting for the party and the story, and so on.

(As a rule, the "oh my gosh, so much damages" characters shine against low-AC high-HP monsters. They aren't that much better against hoards, and are usually marginally worse than the other options against high-AC monsters. Also: dominated high-DPR beatsticks are really really scary to team PC. And most of those high-damage PCs have crap wisdom saves)

Blah, Monks aren't high-level damage dealers, they're controllers as soon as they hit level 5.

(and that's exactly my point. At level 1, they feel like damage dealers. At level 6, they're ... not. If you think you're the damage dealer, you'll be in for a shock if someone else shows up with an actual damage dealer)

Vulf said:

Nothing that breaks the mechanics of the game (besides some elf warlock sorcerer builds), but when a DM retunes encounters to challenge 1 optimized party member, the other players may feel useless.

Say you have a Great Weapon Master Bear Totem/Champion in the party. between levels 5-10 he is putting out ~70 damage a turn and killing 2 things while resisting everyting. Once per short rest he gets a 120 hp nova round.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing there's a build I'm unaware of, since I don't know of one that does that damage between levels 5 and 10.

Add in things like Cleave and Flanking, and you've got a guy telling other players where they have to stand and which guys they aren't allowed to attack yet.

He might ruin the experience for a Polearm Fighter or a Dual-wielder that is only putting out 25-30 a turn and not getting any kills against enemies that have had their hitpoints maximized to account for the Barbarian's damage.

Click to expand...

I actually disagree. You're talking about something incredibly specific, that can do great damage under those specific circumstances. Change the variables of the encounter, and the character is effectively neutered. Some encounters it will excel, in others it will be a spectator. Is it better at pure melee damage than most builds? Sure. But I don't see that as a reason to ban anything.

At the end of the day the situation is largely the same: a hyper optimized character will outshine a non-optimized one. That's a situation that should be handled at the player level as opposed to a rules level.

The risk of builds ruining the play experience is MASSIVELY decreased if you use point buy instead of rolling for stats. Then at least no-one can start with 20 in a main stat and feat choices mean actually sacrificing an important ASI. You don't even need to stick to 27, even a 31 point buy is reasonable. And do NOT use the flanking rule.

Click to expand...

I always go with the standard array. It's simple, effective and balanced. I hate players having a large advantage over pure luck (or lack thereof).