D&D 5E I broke it! Bring on the next system!

[MerricB]

G'day!

I was thinking the other day that one of the chief reasons I've moved on (as much as I can) from versions of D&D is because my group has managed to "break" the system, that is, they've found enough of the holes so that the balance between DM and players, or player and player, has gone enough out of alignment that a new version of D&D is the best way to fix it.

I know that's what happened with 3E (and Pathfinder likewise), and 4E is similar: it doesn't quite do the things I want it to, so bring on 5E!

Am I alone in that?

In 3E, my group managed to break Armour Class, and spells in general, so judging threats was a lot harder. In 4E, the divergence between the maths and higher-level characters also proved troublesome. (And long combats, as well, wore us down).

Cheers!

 

[Mark CMG]

alignment

You just had to use the "a" word . . .

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm not sure I'm seeing your problem with 4e as "breaking the system", at least not compared to the levels of breakage and their common occurrence in it's predecessor.

 

[Evenglare]

Any system is "breakable" if you look to do it. My group and I just play and have fun, we all have a pretty good unspoken contract about roleplaying rather than roll playing. For ME, 99% of the problems I see with pathfinder or 3.5 or whatever is that GMs don't understand that they can AND SHOULD limit spell selection and how they are obtained. But again YMMV, that's just been my experience.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Maybe I'm just crazy, but whenever I see something in my game that I could consider "broken", I just fix it. Then I move on and play the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, if by "Break" you mean "Played it until its annoying things came too much to the fore." 3e/PF is a mess, and 4e is kind of a frickin' chore, so I'm ready for a cleaned-up version of something pre-WotC that uses the things learned over the last 15 years without being married to them and chained down by them. I'm ready for a game that doesn't think it's stank ain't stank. If 5e is as modular as promised, that'll probably do: if I think a thing is stank, I can get rid of it instead of developing complicated workarounds and without preachy "We think you should play like this!" posturing.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, if by "Break" you mean "Played it until its annoying things came too much to the fore.".

That's pretty much what I meant. Nicely expressed.

Cheers!

 

[Greenfield]

My own resolution for the "system breakers" syndrome is encompassed in a single word: No.

When someone wants spell interpretations that unbalance things, I say no.

Someone wants to pull something out of Psionics or Exalted Deeds that makes them overpowered, I just say no.

They want to make an optimized weapon for their five-prestige-class Mahem Master, I say no. (In fact, I probably said "no" long before they took their fifth prestige class).

When used fairly and consistently, this wondrous word keeps game systems playable for a very long time. Use it early and often!

 

[sheadunne]

That's pretty much what I meant. Nicely expressed.

Cheers!

Yup!

 

[frankthedm]

I know that's what happened with 3E (and Pathfinder likewise), and 4E is similar: it doesn't quite do the things I want it to...

Am I alone in that?

The Old-school Renaissance seems to indicate you are not alone. I know I've got a tighter grip on my 1E, Basic & 2001 Hackmaster books than my 3Era and Pathfinder books nowadays.