D&D 5E What is "broken" in 5e?

I'm genuinely curious what everyone here thinks is broken in 5th edition DnD. First though, a few things...

Broken in this thread I take to mean as one of two things:

1. Does not function well; not as effective as it should be, doesn't perform the task it's supposed to, otherwise does not work, etc.
2. Functions too well; more effective than it should be, usable for tasks not intended, etc.

If you have a different definition of broken, please explain what you mean when you say broken before explaining what is broken and why.

If possible, please suggest a fix (not required), this can be a conceptual fix, not a rules-lawyery explicit rule replacement, just like, "Oh if we changed X to only apply/generally apply then it would fix its strength/shortcomings."


Example: The Lucky Feat
I wouldn't ban it or anything, it's just very, VERY useful, especially on a halfling or with a diviner (a halfling diviner with lucky, bwahahahaha...). Turning disadvantage into super advantage is pretty sick. If I were to suggest a fix, I'd limit it to once per short rest, as the 3/long rest lets a character save up all the uses for a single fight and drastically change the outcome.

Personally, I don't think it's actually broken, I was just thinking of an example of a really powerful ability (depending on your table, suggested adventuring day implies basically 1 use per short rest) that can be attained relatively early in play. A variant human could start with it, for example. There's people who are going to take it all the time, and find every use they can for it, and there's people who are like, meh, I like this better. I don't really think it's a problem, but you may disagree, I'm just wanting to know what people have a problem with, and why.

Yes, I know there's a lot of threads about specific things being broken, but there's not a thread for people to come and just generally throw out what ideas they have as to "this is broken and why, here's my suggested fix." I just think if we had an idea of what kinds of things we actually agreed on, generally, it would be useful for us all when designing content for a broader audience. Maybe you think healing is too strong, or maybe you think that a particular ability or spell is too weak, the encounter building tools make boring and weak fights, whatever. I'm just curious to see what people don't like, and why, and how they think it could be fixed to work more appropriately to the way they want to play even if the fix isn't well thought out or you can link to your fix directly that you've already made.

I'm not wanting to start arguments, so if you disagree with someone, I suggest ignoring it. If you want to argue, by all means, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that's not the intent of the thread. The intent is basically a giant user generated list of issues people have with the system itself. I'm looking for a diversity of viewpoints and the things they have issue with because I'm curious if there are any features of the system that are generally agreed upon to be broken, or not function well/as intended.

l0lzero said:

I'm not wanting to start arguments, so if you disagree with someone, I suggest ignoring it.

Click to expand...

:rofl

But if you're just looking for things with issues, I have a list of spell problems at home I can post later. Mostly they are not severe.

Everything in 5e is broken. You should just play video games instead.

Seriously: I don't even understand most of the complaints I read about on these boards. Most seem to determine from DMs who don't want to or don't know how to excercise their authority as DMs or players trying (and succeeding) at gaming the system.

But then, maybe I'm being disingenuous; in my game, I ban most of the character options in the PHB (all races but human, and the only caster class I allow is the Warlock). I would argue that I have those restrictions for worldbuilding reasons, but I guess the people whining about the ranger (for example) could make a similar claim.

If you want to broke something in the 5ed the DM need to be in collusion.

jaelis said:

:rofl

But if you're just looking for things with issues, I have a list of spell problems at home I can post later. Mostly they are not severe.

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that's not my intent to start arguments, it is possible to see something you disagree with and not comment on it. Easier said than done though (obvious irony is obvious)

I would very much be interested in that list ^_^

I just would like to see what people have a problem with to see if there is anything that we can generally all agree doesn't work for the game, I figured the best way to do it would be to have everyone bring their complaints to the table and see how much overlap there is.

Ath-kethin said:

Everything in 5e is broken. You should just play video games instead.

...I ban most of the character options in the PHB (all races but human, and the only caster class I allow is the Warlock). I would argue that I have those restrictions for worldbuilding reasons...

Click to expand...

1. LOL, well, there's a lot of broken in video games too, so that doesn't exactly help

2. So no rangers, paladins, ek, elemental monk, etc.? I'm just curious, I actually kind of like that restriction for a low magic game. Would you consider the UA ranger variant without spells, or does it have too much otherwise magical abilities? Again, curiosity, I'm not expecting you to justify it (it's your game, you do whatever you want).

I'd challenge a few of your assumptions; I don't think something that is "not as effective than it should be" or is "more effective than it should be" are not examples are things that are "broken", more "imbalanced". And there is (and should be) a healthy debate over exactly how much balance to expect out of a RPG system. Humorously, it always felt to me that the lack of balance in character options seemed to only matter most to the CharOp crowd, when the presence such suboptimal and super-optimal choices is basically what gives them their purpose in the first place. But "Sharpshooter" being a "better" feat than "Actor" does not and really should not qualify as "broken" to anyone. There are of course suboptimal choices but those are not even remotely the same thing as "broken" and I would reject any argument to the contrary.

No, "broken" means something that doesn't work as intended. Think the 3.5 Truenamer. The Beastmaster probably comes closest to that, but even then there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that Beastmasters were working just fine for enough players. There are things that seem a little off, like a Wizard being able to prepare more spells than a Sorcerer knows, and player options that seem to rely a little too much on DM fiat, like the Wild Mage.

There are things about the system I don't particularly like, like the dominance of Perception or the fiddliness of Stealth, but those things still (mostly) work as intended. The feats aren't exactly balanced but none of them scream out as completely worthless as-is or way too overpowered (if I wanted to tone down Lucky, I'd probably keep the 3/long rest but restrict its user to once per encounter).

There are probably some issues with individual spells, but having not ever read the PHB spell list front to back I couldn't tell you what specifically they are.

Now, if we bring UA into the discussion that opens a whole other can of worms, but I don't know if you can really make the case for anything in core 5e being out-right "broken". That doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in seeing what other people think, though.

l0lzero said:

2. So no rangers, paladins, ek, elemental monk, etc.? I'm just curious, I actually kind of like that restriction for a low magic game. Would you consider the UA ranger variant without spells, or does it have too much otherwise magical abilities? Again, curiosity, I'm not expecting you to justify it (it's your game, you do whatever you want).

Click to expand...

That is correct. If it's in the Player's Handbook, has spell slots, and isn't a warlock, it's not allowed at my table.

There are a number of subclasses I allow from 3rd party sources, specifically from Primeval Thule supplements (since I am in fact running a game set in Primeval Thule).

But a proliferation of intelligent humanoids strains credibility for a sword & sorcery style campaign as much as a D&D style wizard does, and so PCs are human only. And even in adventures written specifically for Primeval Thule (or Xoth, which I also use and adapt heavily), I replace most NPC casters with non-casters or have them summon demons instead of using other types of magic.

I don't really worry too much about justifying things according to the rulebooks or stuff PCs can do when it comes to creating enemies and encounters, if that isn't obvious.

Hmm. Way to hijack a thread, self.

What's broken? Some of the players expectations.



Why do we keep having these threads? They never end well.


"So tell me, what's wrong with 4e? I don't want to start an argument...." :rolleyes

l0lzero said:

I'm genuinely curious what everyone here thinks is broken in 5th edition DnD. First though, a few things...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's a meaningful question, nor can I really explain why it's not. The best I can do is an analogy:

Glass is, most simply, silicon & oxygen. So is sand. In fact, glass can be made from sand. They're the same thing, chemically.

If you have a pane glass window, it's pretty easy to tell if it's broken or not. Cracks show, and whether it's keeping the wind out is readily apparent.

If you have a pile of sand, is it broken? Not if you want it in a pile. But, once you make it into a sand castle, it can be be judged an intact or broken sand castle based on the condition it's in. If you go looking for cracks in a sand castle like cracks in a window, sure, you can find many of them, but does it really matter? The sand castle's not going to keep the wind out of your house either way.