D&D 5E (2014) DMG - breaking bounded accuracy already?

[Sacrosanct]

yeah, I suppose I could get all the books and break the game with a 40 str and con. I can also get all the gold in the entire game world.

or wait, maybe these things don't actually happen and whining about how it breaks the game is pretty fruitless

 

[Grazzt]

It's not just a 22 strength it could be a 40 strength if you got your hands on 20 books, because it increases the maximum.

Other things that break bounded accuracy, armor +3 with a shield +3, bow +3 with arrows +3.

I know it's a legendary weapon but the fact a Moonblade can have finesse quality on a versatile weapon also opens up some high damage exploits combining sneak attack and great weapon style.

A fighter with +3 plate, +3 shield, Defender sword, ring of protection and defensive fighting style has an AC of 18+3+5+3+1+1= 31.

31! come on nothing is bounded in this game.

DM has control over all of this. If he/she allows it, then so be it I guess, but they don't have to. Even in "canned adventures", the DM can remove or change up the treasure found pretty easily. If the DM decides no stat books, then no stat books. Done.

 

[Paraxis]

The solution to bad game design is not to let the individual DM's fix it.

Rule 0 is supposed to be a last stop to fix what should be a balanced and fine tuned game.

Everyone always saying this problem and that problem, are not actual problems because the DM can just not use the rule, or make a house rule. The game should function at 99% efficiency without DM fiat.

 

[Mouseferatu]

While that's true in many cases, this isn't an example of bad design. This is the items doing what the designers intended, under the assumption that the DM is awake and not too terribly high while running a game.

Including a mechanic that breaks the game if the DM overuses it by a factor of 100, when that's clearly not the intent, isn't bad design. That's like saying the game isn't fair to PCs because the DM can put them up against 78 ancient red dragons and 19 liches in a single fight.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The solution to bad game design is not to let the individual DM's fix it.

Rule 0 is supposed to be a last stop to fix what should be a balanced and fine tuned game.

Everyone always saying this problem and that problem, are not actual problems because the DM can just not use the rule, or make a house rule. The game should function at 99% efficiency without DM fiat.

I don't think that is what anyone is saying - what they are saying is that if you hand out treasure by RAW, the game is fine. If you hand out treasure indiscriminately, then, of course your game will break. Monty Haul DMs have been struggling with this since the game came out. But, hey, if you want your 5th Level PCs to have enough firepower to march through the Nine Hells, go for it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The solution to bad game design is not to let the individual DM's fix it.

Rule 0 is supposed to be a last stop to fix what should be a balanced and fine tuned game.

Everyone always saying this problem and that problem, are not actual problems because the DM can just not use the rule, or make a house rule. The game should function at 99% efficiency without DM fiat.

you've got it backwards. We're not saying it's not a problem because of DM fiat. We're saying it's not a problem because it won't ever really happen. You seem to think it's a problem even though the chances of one PC getting all those books is nearly impossible. So why spend the time worrying about it unless your goal is just to complain?

 

[abirdcall]

What people are saying is that magic items breaking the game is a feature, not a bug.

That is the idea. They're supposed to be special and make your characters special.

If they didn't there wouldn't be a point.

Also, check out pg 13 of the PHB. Modifiers only apply to ability scores up to 30. Specifically not 31 or greater. You could argue that if you somehow got a 32 you could just use it as a 30 and get +10. By the book though there is no modifier for 32. You just wouldn't have one.

 

[fuindordm]

You only have three choices as I see it:
1. Magic items are cool, exciting, and powerful so that PCs are thrilled to get them -- but require a judicious DM
2. Magic items are perfectly balanced within the system and PCs are assumed to have a certain amount (3E)
3. Magic items are perfectly balanced within the system and not required (4E)

No. 2 is bad for bounded accuracy, and No. 3 was a big yawn for me.

Ben

 

[Hussar]

You only have three choices as I see it:
1. Magic items are cool, exciting, and powerful so that PCs are thrilled to get them -- but require a judicious DM
2. Magic items are perfectly balanced within the system and PCs are assumed to have a certain amount (3E)
3. Magic items are perfectly balanced within the system and not required (4E)

No. 2 is bad for bounded accuracy, and No. 3 was a big yawn for me.

Ben

And, to be fair, you don't even need to be that judicious. I mean, good grief, you'd have to give out a minimum of five of these tomes to a single PC over the course of the campaign. Not going to happen.

Hey, guess what? If I give out five Holy Avengers to the party, it's going to break the game too. Or five or pretty much any item that is on the high end of the scale.

It's just not going to happen in a real game. You'd have to find numerous tomes, AND only give those tomes to a single PC (like everyone else at the table wouldn't mind a bit of a stat boost too - it's not like there might be more than one fighter type in the group right?).

This is not a problem.

 

[Uchawi]

Since 5E is a fairly basic game in comparison to D&D overall, then it will be easy to break if you add magic items, multiclassing, more spells, more feats, or other areas of complexity that have not been accounted for in the grand scheme of things. That is especially true for the bounds in the game, or when considering how many sub-systems are present.

But that is the intent. The simplicity is to draw you in and then the DM has to handle it all. So it will be trial by fire.