D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Help Me Break the Game!

[Dausuul]

Or just ban wizards casting in armor.

Or not worry about it. The whole "OMG WIZARDS IN ARMOR" thing is kind of silly. Sure, being able to wear heavy armor is handy, but when you consider that you can do just as well stacking mage armor with bracers of defense and a 14 Dex, it's hardly game-breaking.

Ultimately, it's very, very hard to break the game with purely defensive attributes like AC. In this case, you can't even get your AC to unusual levels; all you can manage is to bring it up to where the fighter's already is.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sure its as possible as it was before. While every edition has had fiddly bits that break, 5e is really attempting to minimize it.

1.) It doesn't have the wildly varying power levels of classes with the balancing factor being XP. (1e).
2.) It lacks a kit system that give mechanical rewards for RP hindrances (2e).
3.) It lacks the character-building in-game of stacking feats and class abilities to maximize power output through accumulation of micro +1s everywhere. (3e/4e).

I'm not saying its perfect, it just lacks the obvious avenues right now. Magic items might be the big one here, we'll see how those line up.

But the PHB? Doesn't seem easy to break.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I would like to add my voice to those hoping to get this thread back on line - if you are in disagreement with the purpose of the thread, that is quite possible of you; please do not attack this thread because you fear it might impact your game in a potential future where... I don't know, I really don't.

Testing the rules' interaction and finding the breaking points are useful information for many players and DMs. We are not at your table, we are not forcing anyone to use the "as-of-yet-not-even-mentioned! exploits" at your tables please do not attack something many find useful simply because you fear it.

The point isn't even to gage which is "more broken", it can simply be to spotlight areas that are potentially problematic.

Sorry for the high-horse-ness, but please stop the mob-lynching of this thread.

 

[Werebat]

Historically the path of optimization to the point of breaking the game lies in a few different areas.

• Multiclass level dipping
• Spells and spell combinations
• Action economy, extra attacks and action surge like abilities, bonus actions

Don't forget magic items that look innocuous until you realize how they can C-C-C-COMBO! with spells and/or class abilities!

Remember the night stick?

 

[Werebat]

I'm not sure its as possible as it was before. While every edition has had fiddly bits that break, 5e is really attempting to minimize it.

True, but Pathfinder seemed to be attempting to minimize it too -- and then along came the gunslinger, synthesist summoner, etc.

I just went ahead and taped a trollface to the iconics for both of those classes in all of my books.

 

[Quartz]

Do other classes get the Fighter's Action Surge? A 2-level dip into Fighter could allow a wizard to cast 2 spells in a round, quite aside from all the other benefits.

 

[Remathilis]

True, but Pathfinder seemed to be attempting to minimize it too -- and then along came the gunslinger, synthesist summoner, etc.

I just went ahead and taped a trollface to the iconics for both of those classes in all of my books.

Yeah, but those were later books. Crap always breaks in later books. First edition had Unearthed Arcana. Second Ed had Player's Options. Third and fourth were a death by a 1,000 mini feats and powers. Fifth has 1/3rd of the core released; give it time.

I'm not a person that buys into tiers: I've seen well-designed fighter brutalize a game and poorly designed summoners twiddle their thumbs. Some classes might be more potent, but I don't worry deeply about the disparity of a sorcerer vs. a wizard. Heck, my Pathfinder game is a cleric, a fighter, a paladin, a gunslinger/rogue, a summoner, and a dervish bard and they aren't exactly decimating everything in sight.

 

[Dausuul]

Do other classes get the Fighter's Action Surge? A 2-level dip into Fighter could allow a wizard to cast 2 spells in a round, quite aside from all the other benefits.

This is something I'd want to see in actual play before judging whether it was broken. In 3E, it would have been grotesque, but this isn't 3E; I have found that the main constraint on a spellcaster is spell slots rather than actions. You get so few in 5E that almost every combat involves at least a couple of rounds where you cast a cantrip or make a weapon attack. It might turn out that Action Surge just lets you burn up your spell slots faster.

On the other hand, if you manage to catch a group of enemies in a tight formation, you can lay down the equivalent of a meteor swarm with two 3rd-level spell slots. That's not to be dismissed lightly. It's just impossible to judge the impact without seeing how it all shakes out in play.

 

[1of3]

Do other classes get the Fighter's Action Surge? A 2-level dip into Fighter could allow a wizard to cast 2 spells in a round, quite aside from all the other benefits.

Sorcerers already have Twin Spell. Action Surge is more flexible, but you loose two Caster Levels

 

[kerbarian]

Do other classes get the Fighter's Action Surge? A 2-level dip into Fighter could allow a wizard to cast 2 spells in a round, quite aside from all the other benefits.

If you start with the two levels of Fighter, you also get heavy armor and proficiency on Constitution saves for concentration. It's a strong combo by the time you hit 7th level (for double fireballs), but losing two caster levels puts you a big step behind pure Wizards in other ways. I'd call it a viable multiclassing option but not broken.

The strongest combat monster path I see is a great weapon Barbarian/Fighter. The Great Weapon Mastery feat plus Reckless Attack is a powerful combo, and a dip into Fighter for Great Weapon Fighting, Action Surge, and Battle Master maneuvers (especially Precision Attack) adds a lot more to it.