What is broken? No really, what is truly broken? Does anyone really know? There are so many opinions, ranging from "Only things like pun-pun" to "everything that is not core". We need to set standards and guidelines. Post here if you are interested in this project or have any ideas as to how we should proceed.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
"brokenness" rating project.
- Thread starter Vardock
- Start date
well, to me, brokenness is something that sucks the fun out of the game.
Taking away vastly from the challenge of playing the game, or making fights overly simple. Part of the fun is the DM putting the players in different situations and having them figure things out, but if one of the characters is overwhelmingly strong, and can just blatantly get out of anything without much trouble or thought, then there is a problem.
Taking away vastly from the challenge of playing the game, or making fights overly simple. Part of the fun is the DM putting the players in different situations and having them figure things out, but if one of the characters is overwhelmingly strong, and can just blatantly get out of anything without much trouble or thought, then there is a problem.
Herzog
Adventurer
IMO, "broken" parts of D&D are those parts that disrupt the (intended) balance.
An example of this is the introduction of 'pounce'.
Although at first this seems only a minor addition (allowing a full attack on a charge), when you combine it with Skirmish (an ability balanced by the fact you need to both move and attack, ensuring only one attack) it becomes far more powerful.
Another example is the 'polymorph' spell.
It basically turns every new (monster) addition to the game meant for DM's into a resource for players.
A far more direct balance-breaker is 'Natural Spell'.
It breaks the (intended, IMO) balance between spellcasting and melee power of a druid.
As to the severity of these 'broken' elements: I think that depends on the group, including both players and DM.
Most players won't abuse the power of polymorph to break the game.
Most DM's will ban polymorph if they suspect the spell will be abused.
The Pounce/Skirmish combination will have less impact if the other groupmembers are casting spells doing the same amount of damage. Also, DMs will quickly introduce movement-impeding obstacles preventing charges if the ability becomes too important in fights.
And Natural Spell is less of an issue if the Druid still remains in it's 'normal' form most of the time.
An example of this is the introduction of 'pounce'.
Although at first this seems only a minor addition (allowing a full attack on a charge), when you combine it with Skirmish (an ability balanced by the fact you need to both move and attack, ensuring only one attack) it becomes far more powerful.
Another example is the 'polymorph' spell.
It basically turns every new (monster) addition to the game meant for DM's into a resource for players.
A far more direct balance-breaker is 'Natural Spell'.
It breaks the (intended, IMO) balance between spellcasting and melee power of a druid.
As to the severity of these 'broken' elements: I think that depends on the group, including both players and DM.
Most players won't abuse the power of polymorph to break the game.
Most DM's will ban polymorph if they suspect the spell will be abused.
The Pounce/Skirmish combination will have less impact if the other groupmembers are casting spells doing the same amount of damage. Also, DMs will quickly introduce movement-impeding obstacles preventing charges if the ability becomes too important in fights.
And Natural Spell is less of an issue if the Druid still remains in it's 'normal' form most of the time.
IronWolf
blank
I think it will be quite difficult to apply any sort of standards and guidelines to what is likely a rather subjective call for all but the most extreme cases.
Vegepygmy
First Post
I'm going to join in the sentiment that attempting to classify parts of the game as "broken" is futile. Nothing in the game is broken in itself; it's only in how you use it. And to that end, I agree with the poster who said "broken" is anything that sucks the fun out of the game.
No one has ever accused a wizard played by me of "breaking" the game, for example. Yet it is a frequent complaint by many that wizards are broken. I believe the reason why my wizards aren't considered broken is that I voluntarily refrain from doing anything with them that I know is going to spoil the fun of my fellow players.
If everyone approached the game that way, I doubt we'd see many claims that X, Y or Z is "broken."
No one has ever accused a wizard played by me of "breaking" the game, for example. Yet it is a frequent complaint by many that wizards are broken. I believe the reason why my wizards aren't considered broken is that I voluntarily refrain from doing anything with them that I know is going to spoil the fun of my fellow players.
If everyone approached the game that way, I doubt we'd see many claims that X, Y or Z is "broken."
If a level 1 monster's basic melee attack does 50d100 damage, that would be broken. 
IronWolf
blank
If a level 1 monster's basic melee attack does 50d100 damage, that would be broken.
I could agree with that!
