D&D 5E it appears to be very easy to break the game

[Mistwell]

To paraphrase the [trite overused] urban idiom: "Breaker's gonna break."

True, but there's no reason to not take a few "normal" precautions concerning stacking things.

 

[Halivar]

So a Mountain Dwarf Ranger 5/ Mage 2 with just three "normal" magic items (+1 armor, +1 shield, +1 ring of protection) is almost unhittable.

I'm holding out hope that I can break a more interesting sounding build, because I can't see myself getting through a whole campaign with that one.

 

[jodyjohnson]

+1 Full Plate, with a base AC of 19 (19)
+1 Shield will add +3 (22)
The level 2 Druid/Ranger spell Barkskin will add +2 (24)
The 3rd level Wizard spell Haste will add +2 (26)
The 1st Level Cleric spell Shield of Faith will add +1 (27)
The 3rd Level Cleric spell Prayer will add +1 (28)
A Ring of Protection will add +1 if Attuned (29)
A Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone give +1 (30)
A Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone give +1 (31)

I'd make none of those stack by calling them all Magic Bonuses. Each class having their own take at increased defenses or increased attacks.

With the current math, +1 to +3 for lasting bonuses and +1d4 for variable bonuses seems like an appropriate cap.

But then we are into options and house rules.

I think all the multiclassing for 'striker add-ons' should be handled the same way. Several of them are already covered by the Concentration mechanic. Maybe they should all require concentration except Rage which by definition would cancel all Concentration effects.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd make none of those stack by calling them all Magic Bonuses. Each class having their own take at increased defenses or increased attacks.

With the current math, +1 to +3 for lasting bonuses and +1d4 for variable bonuses seems like an appropriate cap.

But then we are into options and house rules.

I think all the multiclassing for 'striker add-ons' should be handled the same way. Several of them are already covered by the Concentration mechanic. Maybe they should all require concentration except Rage which by definition would cancel all Concentration effects.

I think armor and shield should stack with each other, but beyond that I agree no reason for them to stack.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Honestly, if you game with people who enjoy spending thier time breaking games instead of playing them then you will be miserable no matter what you play as a system.

Game mechanics cannot fix people. If the game you are playing seems to be as unsatisfying as the last dozen or so then try keeping the mechanics and changing the company. You might be suprised at the results.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly, if you game with people who enjoy spending thier time breaking games instead of playing them then you will be miserable no matter what you play as a system. Game mechanics cannot fix people. If the game you are playing seems to be as unsatisfying as the last dozen or so then try keeping the mechanics and changing the company. You might be suprised at the results.

If on the other hand the games all fail for very specific reasons, like being broken in half by someone who enjoys fiddling with the rules, try changing the system to one where the designers haven't decided to make the DMs do the work they were paid to. You might be surprised at the results. Breaking games might not fix people - but you don't need them fixed (you'll never find truly fixed people), just ones whose break points are not those promoted by the system.

 

[Guest 85555]

If on the other hand the games all fail for very specific reasons, like being broken in half by someone who enjoys fiddling with the rules, try changing the system to one where the designers haven't decided to make the DMs do the work they were paid to. You might be surprised at the results. Breaking games might not fix people - but you don't need them fixed (you'll never find truly fixed people), just ones whose break points are not those promoted by the system.

curious which games you think succeeded at not 'make(ing) the GM do the work' and which haven't.

My view is there is room for all kinds of approaches to rules and balance. I think exploder may be thinking more in terms of his threshold for what he considers broken being different from yours, rather than saying he enjoys games that force him to do the work. I think part of the problem with these debates, which are really just about preferenves is both sides have been framing itas a failure of intellect or inagination of the other (i.e. You like broken systems and designers who refuse to do their job, versus you are damaged and can't handle games with flexibility). I din't see why it requires so much hostlity towards styles of play and tastes that are not our own.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, because I like playing devil's advocate, I will try to break the game.

Bounded accuracy depends on AC not getting too high (Ac 28 seems fairly unhittable by anything other than a crit). Because attack bonuses are fairly fixed.

+1 Full Plate, with a base AC of 19 (19)
+1 Shield will add +3 (22)
The level 2 Druid/Ranger spell Barkskin will add +2 (24)
The 3rd level Wizard spell Haste will add +2 (26)
The 1st Level Cleric spell Shield of Faith will add +1 (27)
The 3rd Level Cleric spell Prayer will add +1 (28)
A Ring of Protection will add +1 if Attuned (29)
A Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone give +1 (30)
A Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone give +1 (31)
Mountain Dwarf +1 (32)
Fighter Defense ability +1 (33) (You could go with protection for forced disadvantage, which is better than a +1 AC on average, but it's only once per round).

Every one of the spells you listed is Concentration, which means any single caster can only sustain one of them at a time. So, you've got your AC being buffed by four casters, plus a rare item, a very rare item, and a legendary item, and an item which as far as I can tell does not exist (the list of +1 armors does not include shields, and I think that's intentional).

Now, you can still get to a pretty respectable 26 AC by using barkskin, +1 plate, ring of protection, shield, and fighter/mountain dwarf. And I agree that a balor should not need an 18 to hit any PC. High-level monsters being too weak is a known issue, though, and in itself I don't think 26 is crazy broken for the high end of the AC range.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd make none of those stack by calling them all Magic Bonuses. Each class having their own take at increased defenses or increased attacks.

I'd call that out in the rules to prevent arguments. In flavor terms some of those should stack. (Why shouldn't Haste's speed boost stack with Barkskin's toughness bonus? I feel Haste should be a 7th or 8th level spell, only then could it hand out all appropriate bonuses.)

In the example, half of those spells might be legitimately flying around the table.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Honestly, if you game with people who enjoy spending thier time breaking games instead of playing them then you will be miserable no matter what you play as a system.

Game mechanics cannot fix people. If the game you are playing seems to be as unsatisfying as the last dozen or so then try keeping the mechanics and changing the company. You might be suprised at the results.

The idea that games only break as a result of malicious intent is at best a myth and at worst a willful lie. I've had several games break apart because people honestly and with good intentions picked whatever sounded fun or interesting, but accidentally wound up breaking things.