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

[Kobold Stew]

Lastly, this makes DEX a viable dump stat if you aren't using ranged weapons.

...until you meat a dreaded first-level Cleric who bypasses all these defences with a cantrip.

 

[Halivar]

As a GM, I enjoy reading these. It gives me bearings on what to expect, and if I see anything that looks crazy, I get a chance to nerf its possibility.

I agree. I'll even go so far as to say this is an important​ thread. As a GM, it's a must-read if people take it seriously and offer up real examples.

 

[Crothian]

Mostly the "brokenness" discussed there stemmed from mechanical advantages that were "balanced" via roleplaying hindrances (hello Paladin! And later the Barbarian!), the handing out of the "wrong kind" of magic items to creative players, or spells that were out of whack power level wise.

Those were problems because DMs did not enforce the rules. DMs handing out the wrong kind of magical items is a DM issue not a rules issue. But the most important thing to remember about 1e and earlier is it was never said to be a balanced system. They made stuff up that sounded fun

But it was there. It was the whole reason that the developers tried to codify 3e mechanically as much as they did in the first place.

I'm not sure how much 3e was a reaction to a 1e. I think it had more to do with a new company owning the property and they wanted a new edition to help the cash flow.

 

[Cybit]

You hardly put any thought into it. Heavy Armor + Shield + infinitely castable Shield spell (level 18 Wizard feature) = consistent 25 AC. Plus BoD equals 28 AC, which is overkill, so instead you have something like Bracers of +INT or +STs (if exists). And this AC is possible way before level 18 (like level ~3-5 if you dip Cleric first level), you just have to spend a L1 spell slot for it.

Bracers of Defense only give you a bonus if you have no armor, so no 28 AC for you.

Using Shield would eat up your reaction every turn, which takes away a lot of potential offensive power (see feat that lets you AoO with a single target spell). At L18, a 25 AC wizard is the least of my problems. (The 9th level spells are my problem.)

 

[omniknight]

Bracers of Defense only give you a bonus if you have no armor, so no 28 AC for you.

Regardless, I said 28 AC is overkill and suggested to go with another magic item in that "slot," not to take it. I don't actually have any materials yet beyond the Basic Rules PDF, so I haven't read the stats on BoD yet.

Using Shield would eat up your reaction every turn, which takes away a lot of potential offensive power (see feat that lets you AoO with a single target spell). At L18, a 25 AC wizard is the least of my problems. (The 9th level spells are my problem.)

That depends on how you play your Wizard. Mine is going to spell snipe at range and isn't going to be in many situations where I would have to use Shield every turn to avoid being hit. Nor would I be in a position to utilize AoOs very much since that requires being right next to the fighting.

The 25 AC Wizard means you are going to have to sink more (or different kinds of) monster resources into damaging him than otherwise be necessary. It is an easy-to-obtain defensive measure meant address a normal Wizard weakness and frustrate the enemy, not end encounters.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Bracers of Defense only give you a bonus if you have no armor, so no 28 AC for you.

Using Shield would eat up your reaction every turn, which takes away a lot of potential offensive power (see feat that lets you AoO with a single target spell). At L18, a 25 AC wizard is the least of my problems. (The 9th level spells are my problem.)

Well said. The build still leaves the wizard vulnerable to a cleric cantrip, Sacred Flame.

 

[omniknight]

Well said. The build still leaves the wizard vulnerable to a cleric cantrip, Sacred Flame.

Pfft, see my response above.

And, like I said earlier, low DEX and no DEX ST proficiency is somewhat mitigated by high HP that is very attainable with 18 CON+Hill Dwarf+Tough(or 20 CON). Failing a DEX ST usually just means taking more damage, not suffering a debilitating effect like a WIS ST failure.

 

[n00bdragon]

Props to this kind of thread. Problems cannot be dealt with if they are not first recognized as being problems. Declaring that problems only stem from people playing the game wrong or not enforcing whatever bizarre RP restrictions an individual deems necessary doesn't actually fix those problems. It just ignores them, and that's not a viable solution.

I'm not really sure where to start with 5e. Stuff like maxing out your AC doesn't really make you broken in my eyes unless that means something. You expend all these resources to be an invincible lump on the battlefield. So what? The real threat is going to be those spells that resolve encounters outright, particularly those that don't even require a die roll to do so.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Pfft, see my response above.

And, like I said earlier, low DEX and no DEX ST proficiency is somewhat mitigated by high HP that is very attainable with 18 CON+Hill Dwarf+Tough(or 20 CON). Failing a DEX ST usually just means taking more damage, not suffering a debilitating effect like a WIS ST failure.

"Pfft" indeed. Play the game, building the character up from level 1; you'll see how broken in fact it is. I stand by Not at All -- It's a fragile build.

 

[Obryn]

Let's talk about a necromancer's ability to keep a horde of beefy skeletons with bows, for starters.