D&D 5E What official material is considered problematic to the point where it is not balanced and presents a problem?

[shoak1]

Again, balance is subjective. What rules work and what rules need revision are open to interpretation by any individual gaming group. Whatever publisher you use, this is the case. You might be cool with Arcane Eye! I was not in that moment. The same might apply to any rule from any book by anybody.

Your contention here irks me. The main problem with it is that it positions balance as a black or white, subjective or objective concept. In reality it is 50% subjective and 50% objective. Within the 50% that is objective, there is still disagreement, but that doesn't make it subjective - it just means there are unqualified and just plain wrong peeps out there judging it.

In other words, there are principals of game design that transcend genre - rpgs don't get a free pass because of their diversity of playstyles or the presence of a DM.

 

[CapnZapp]

Most doors (especially in a dilapidated old dungeon) have a one-inch gap that can be Arcane Eye'd under.


I mean, one character exploring an entire dungeon by themselves is, at the very least, like 15-20 minutes of real-world yawn-time for the rest of the party to go grab a beer. It's also a useful "I have an entire map of this place now" spell, combined with an "I know the surface-level contents of every room" spell with a dash of "I know how many creatures and of what type are living here" spell. That's not every avenue for surprise shut down, but it's a lot of 'em. It should be a useful spell (a 5th level Divination spell ain't nothin'!), but that seemed like an outsized effect that also had a negative effect on the other players of the game.

Well, trying to shut down efforts to solo scout the dungeon is going down a rabbit hole. It's just not a solution. No matter what restrictions you impose, a player that wants to solo scout will find a way.

The problem isn't the spell - it's the desire to solo.

Instead this is best resolved by simply talking to the group.

Acknowledge all the rational reasons for scouting. Make sure all agree the most important thing is that everybody is having fun.

Then ask them to experience the dungeon together.

 

[Prakriti]

You might be cool with Arcane Eye! I was not in that moment.

I think "in that moment" is the important part here. We DMs design dungeons with certain assumptions in mind. At later levels, players get the ability to scout remotely with arcane eye and walk through walls with stone shape. Suddenly the assumptions go out the window, and we usually don't learn about it until the players do something unexpected (and often adventure-breaking). It almost becomes inevitable after a certain point, because once you add in enough factors -- such as 50-100 spells -- then the possibilities become endless. That's why designing high-level adventures is so hard. You can't account for everything, and the only way to really safeguard your dungeon is to throw in some impassible barriers that stop certain spells from functioning ("Oooold magic," as Matt Mercer would say).

As for arcane eye, I had a similar experience. The Wizard player actually discussed it with me beforehand, and we agreed that a scouting mission would take up way too much time. Then, as I started the session, he exclaimed, "Wait! I thought I was going to use arcane eye to scout ahead!" Cue 30 minutes of everyone sitting around as that one player explored half the dungeon.

Later on, I realized that I'd handled the situation incorrectly. I gave room-by-room descriptions, as I would with any dungeon exploration, as opposed to a bullet-point run-down of the dungeon layout. Here's how I should have done it: "Okay, here's a map of what you saw. Doors block these three passages. There's an orc here, three sitting around a table here, and an ogre sleeping behind the curtain. Halfway down this corridor, there's a trip-wire, and on the door at the end of this corridor, there's a glyph."

Suddenly 30 minutes of exploration becomes 5, and the players have what they want: an idea of what to expect, and the ability to plan accordingly.

Someone might think that arcane eye ruins a dungeon, and in some cases it does, but sometimes it enhances it. I'm reminded of an episode of Acquisitions, Inc. where Chris Perkins gave the group a complete map of the dungeon they were about to enter (provided by a friendly NPC or something). Rather than ruin the experience, it added to it, as the players then spent hours planning their assault. So, yes, utilizing arcane eye results in a different dynamic, but that dynamic is still a lot of fun.

 

[Zardnaar]

Armor - not sure I agree. Having multiple kinds of armor that all act much the same is after all a big plus for verisimilitude. The fact only a few are optimal is no reason to exclude the rest from the rules. I dont buy the argument "but the other ones are just trap options". The rules present lots of options that aren't best or even good, no reason for armor to be any different than, say, spells.

Saves - agreed. The way saves don't keep up makes the rules feel very inelegant.

Feats - I know the OP started the thread thinking of unbalanced options, but so far most of what we discuss is wonky or borked, rather than outright imbalanced. So I'll keep feats out of my reply.

I would have liked medium armor for example being a bit better but because of the way they designed strength and dex this is why you have 2 clear best armor things.

Medium armor is also MAD in most cases.

 

[CapnZapp]

8. researching spells has become a DM only thing.

I think your ship has sailed for most points, but I'll give you that spell research would be kind of neat.

Nothing prevents you from giving the DMG guidelines for spell parameters to a player. Just make sure you retain final say. (You don't have to give yourself a veto, just as long as you can say any unbalanced spell is a level 9 spell )

 

[CapnZapp]

I would have liked medium armor for example being a bit better but because of the way they designed strength and dex this is why you have 2 clear best armor things.

Medium armor is also MAD in most cases.

I'm sure it's possible to create a "third optimum" for medium armor. What I'm not sure about is if it's worth the effort.

If I never saw players use medium armor, I might be inclined to think of this as a bigger issue.

 

[Remathilis]

1. concentration mechanic. For people who liked stacking things, this pretty much ended their investment in D&D and they still play earlier editions without that mechanic

This, IMHO, is the best thing 5e brought to magic. I played high-level 3.5 and Pathfinder, and it was a nightmare when PCs cast multiple buff spells over and over (shield of faith, greater invisibility, fly, stoneskin, greater magic weapon, etc) to boost numbers into the stratosphere. I warped the game. Monsters needed major math improvements to keep up, which accelerate the arms race for PCs. At a certain point, the d20 roll was often a formality since bonus alone was the determining factor. Dispel Magic became a necessity, and the time taken to calculate (and recalculate) each attack was tear-inducing.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

2. some of the damage tables for some weapons are off, but we all know that. it gets worse when you use the DMG asian weapons section and has been the spawning grounds for many debates, as many of you already know

D&D weapon damage is never realistic. Never has been. I don't see where 5e is any more-or-less egregious than any other edition in that regard.

3. construction of legendary magic item time tables were frankly (unpleasantry A) and (unpleasantry B). I understand this isn't a free speech zone, so lets just leave it at "50+ years to make 1 magic item is (unpleasantry C..Z)"

GOOD! Its not the royal rite of every wizard to have his own staff of power and robes of the archmagi. Not every paladin can ask his cleric friend to whip up a holy avenger in a weekend. I like the idea that creating something LEGENDARY should be a lifes-work undertaking done by NPCs rarely and for the sake of plot.

4. some of the power balance for spells got shuffled around. Overall, the spells 1st through 9th are about as powerful as some earlier editions, but it kind of stung that old favorites, like a muscle car, got tuned down while their competitors got the nitro boosters.

Got any examples? In my experience, most of the classic D&D spells (magic missile, fireball, flame strike, meteor swarm) are way more powerful than others of that level, lending toward their continued popularity.

5. high level play is wonky. if you don't have experience with high level play, or simply don't care, or had a bad experience, this probably doesn't apply to you. For my group, that 21+ sweet spot allowed DMs and players a vast sandbox of weirdness happiness and where legally possible, doritos and/or mind altering substances.

My experiences with high level D&D (including high level 2e and 3.5) were... less than mind-altering. They involved a lot of one-sided battles and constant recalculating math. YMMV.

6. shield sizes are missing. The shield bash damage and shield bonus for a buckler, a kite shield, a tower shield, and a spartan shield should not all be the same, but they are in 5e.

Shields are abstracted to basically be one-size. Doing more than that makes the game far more fiddly and harder to balance. It might be a good place for a supplement, but hardly a gamebreaker.

Again, recalculating ability scores (and the swarms of changes each +2 to a score wrought) is another removal for the sake of simplicity and balance. I don't miss the multiple magical vitamins (bull's str, cat's grace) and I really don't miss the +2/+4/+6 jewelry.

8. researching spells has become a DM only thing. It used to be one of the most popular activities for players of wizards. Old George is dead these days, but when i visited him in the retirement home, he was quick to tell me all about his big binders of spells for his fire wizard. Same with another friend and his wizards. Same with another other friend and their wizards. In fact, it's kind of weird to be in a version of D&D where people don't create their own spells.

Like magic items, spell creation is something under DM prevue. You can still research spells, but now the DM, not the rulebook, sets the tone for it. I get how some PCs may cringe at the fact they were once able to make any broken spell the want under the old rules now have to play Mother May I, but spell research like this was how it was done under 1e, basic, and 2e for most of its run.

Personally, the nerfing of God-Wizards and CoDzilla was the best thing 5e did.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've seen a few posters talk about how official D&D material has it's share of problems. Now I can understand that past editions had their problems mechanically, but what problems are their with the current game?

Simulacrum comes to mind. With or without Wish.

Pass Without Trace is a bit broken too, without houserules. Pass Without Trace + Cunning Action + Stealth Expertise + Skulker feat ceases to even be funny. It's just a "win" button.

As others have remarked, there are some rules (magic item rules, DMG rules for diplomacy/influencing reactions) which are bad enough to be unusable, which isn't precisely the same as breaking the game, but certainly that part of the game is broken if you use it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree to everything on this list. But in fairness, none of them impact balance. They're borked alright, but not primarily "overpowered" or "underpowered".

I've seen these rulings cause some dramatic shifts in the power of various strategies and builds. Generous stealth rules and permissive surprise make ambushes really good, and emphasize DEX and light armor, weakening the heavier melee characters. Using Perception more than Investigation during exploration similarly privileges WIS over INT and can skew characters to dump INT. Hand-juggling rulings can lead to crippling the action economy for various gish builds. These are pretty significant things that DM adjudication can make or break!

Your contention here irks me. The main problem with it is that it positions balance as a black or white, subjective or objective concept. In reality it is 50% subjective and 50% objective. Within the 50% that is objective, there is still disagreement, but that doesn't make it subjective - it just means there are unqualified and just plain wrong peeps out there judging it.

In other words, there are principals of game design that transcend genre - rpgs don't get a free pass because of their diversity of playstyles or the presence of a DM.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the assertion that there are principles of game design that transcend genre, or at least not without significant caveats. Ultimately, if something works at a table, it is working, and if something is busted at the table, it's busted. It doesn't matter if the thing that works at one table is busted at another or vice-versa as much. You can design things that are less borked at fewer tables, but there's no TTRPG system out there that will be completely unborked, always, for everyone who plays.

 

[SkidAce]

Timing - an encounter early in the day or after a short rest can be a very different affair than the same encounter after a series of others, when the party is low on resources and on less than half hit points.

I'm okay with this one, seems like it should be harder after a long day of adventuring.