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

[Mistwell]

This is, of course, how 3rd edition wound up with different categories of bonus - enhancement bonus, natural armor bonus, luck bonus - that everyone complained about so much and forced them to fix.

I would think that the ultimate intent is to fix it that any bonuses don't stack with each other, but I'm not sure how that could work. I guess you could start by saying that +1 armor doesn't give you a +1 magical bonus to AC, but is simply AC +9 instead of AC +8.

"Magical bonuses do not stack with each other" is the easiest way to solve this issue. So if you have +1 armor, +1 ring of protection, +2 from barkskin, and +2 from haste...you have a total of +2 and that's it. It's simple, and works.

 

[Dausuul]

This is, of course, how 3rd edition wound up with different categories of bonus - enhancement bonus, natural armor bonus, luck bonus - that everyone complained about so much and forced them to fix.

I would think that the ultimate intent is to fix it that any bonuses don't stack with each other, but I'm not sure how that could work. I guess you could start by saying that +1 armor doesn't give you a +1 magical bonus to AC, but is simply AC +9 instead of AC +8.

Actually, I think the intent is to fix it by controlling how many bonuses you can get in the first place. They do have some clever tricks though. For example, they took care of the spell bonus problem by putting all buff spells on a "concentration" duration.

Let's break down where the bonuses are coming from, assuming just the +1 full plate and the ring of protection:

18: Basic AC for full plate
+2: Magic item bonuses
+2: Shield
+1: Race
+1: Class
+2: Buff spell
--------------
26

There really isn't any obvious place to say "No, these two things should not stack." You could say barkskin doesn't stack with armor, but can you justify a similar restriction on haste? I think the best solution is to just give monster attack bonuses a moderate boost. It's okay if the balor needs a 14 or so to hit your Dwarf of Invincibility! Given how much effort you put into boosting your AC, you ought to be hard to hit, even for a high-end monster.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Second response that says or implies this, but you're missing the point. I am listing spells for thoroughness. You're unhittable by anything in the except on a natural 20 (or maybe a 19 for that Balor), with just the AC 27.

Forget the spells if it helps appreciate the example. My point is, they probably either need to tweak the attack bonuses of monsters, or the stackability of some items/spells/abilities, or both.

Sure, definitely. Probably the reason I felt like posting is just because I feel that it is better for the game to allow everything to stack, and just take that into account. Monsters are where this issue should be addressed.

 

[billd91]

"Magical bonuses do not stack with each other" is the easiest way to solve this issue. So if you have +1 armor, +1 ring of protection, +2 from barkskin, and +2 from haste...you have a total of +2 and that's it. It's simple, and works.

Indeed it would. One of the reasons there was such a proliferation of bonus types under 3e was, I presume, for legacy reasons, particularly with respect to spell synergy. Evidence - bless and prayer used to work together in 1e (along with chant but chant didn't make the cut into 3e) so they were given morale and luck bonuses, respectively, to enable them to continue to work together. Same with a luckstone's luck bonus and the cloak of resistance's resistance bonus.
One notable deviation from legacy was the ring of protection being redefined to allow it to stack with magical armor - something it couldn't stack with in 1e/2e - as well as mundane armor.

I have also thought that spinning a lot of spell-based bonuses into a "magic" or "spell" bonus would go a long way toward controlling bonus proliferation. I'd certainly be willing to accept the loss of bless/prayer stacking as the price to pay for that.

 

[Dausuul]

I have also thought that spinning a lot of spell-based bonuses into a "magic" or "spell" bonus would go a long way toward controlling bonus proliferation. I'd certainly be willing to accept the loss of bless/prayer stacking as the price to pay for that.

They've already addressed spell stacking in 5E; you can't stack bless and prayer unless you've got two clerics. Magic items are the main source of stacking bonuses now.

 

[Argyle King]

Excuse me for butting into this shard of the ongoing style wars, but this snippet from the original poster's further explanation intrigued me: @Johnny3D3D , could you explain what you mean by "the story that the game was trying to tell"?

My own general view is that the mechanics are the game, for this purpose (i.e. "the game" is whatever the mechanics produce), but it would seem that you have a different view. That might help explain some differences of style/expectation, maybe. Is this, perhaps, similar to @pemerton 's described clash between the expectations engendered by the BD&D introduction and the actual rules that he experienced? Or something different?

The game reads very different than it actually plays. I'm not sure how to better explain that. In the case of early 4E, I felt that way for two reasons: 1) The preview books, some of the early material, and the "Points of Light" idea sounded more like what I suppose you might call sword & sorcery to me; in contrast, the mechanics at times felt more like either a supers game or maybe a sci-fi game directed by Michael Bay; 2) I felt that the whole "ze game will remain ze same" mantra was misleading and gave expectations about what kind of game was being designed that didn't match up with how the end product actually turned out.

I'm someone who believes that fluff and crunch are both parts of the puzzle, and I believe they should have a coherent relationship.

With next, I can only again say that the game reads differently than it actually plays (at least for me.) There are a lot of parts which I think sound really cool and awesome, but somehow all of those parts that I find awesome don't seem so awesome when all put together and put into motion to run a game. Reading the game, reading blog posts by the designers, and various other things give me a vibe which doesn't seem to be the same vibe I get when I actually play the game. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that. There's some sort of disconnect for me.

Again, I'm not suggesting that I'm not having fun. I am. However, in spite of the fact that I'm having fun, something just isn't clicking for me, and I don't feel compelled to purchase the game upon release or feel excited about it. Though, I do have to say that I will likely buy the current adventure; I'm highly enjoying it and could see myself transporting some of the ideas into a different system.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

With next, I can only again say that the game reads differently than it actually plays (at least for me.) There are a lot of parts which I think sound really cool and awesome, but somehow all of those parts that I find awesome don't seem so awesome when all put together and put into motion to run a game. Reading the game, reading blog posts by the designers, and various other things give me a vibe which doesn't seem to be the same vibe I get when I actually play the game. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that. There's some sort of disconnect for me.

That's very intriguing. Please let us know if you refine the disconnect. I find playing with those ideas enlightening.

 

[Balesir]

The game reads very different than it actually plays. I'm not sure how to better explain that. <snip>

Thanks for the reply - as [MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION] says, it's intriguing! I kind of suspect it may have something to do with underlying/assumed world models, but without the capability to be inside someone else's mind it's really hard to tell...

 

[dd.stevenson]

With next, I can only again say that the game reads differently than it actually plays (at least for me.) There are a lot of parts which I think sound really cool and awesome, but somehow all of those parts that I find awesome don't seem so awesome when all put together and put into motion to run a game. Reading the game, reading blog posts by the designers, and various other things give me a vibe which doesn't seem to be the same vibe I get when I actually play the game. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that. There's some sort of disconnect for me.

Again, I'm not suggesting that I'm not having fun. I am. However, in spite of the fact that I'm having fun, something just isn't clicking for me, and I don't feel compelled to purchase the game upon release or feel excited about it. Though, I do have to say that I will likely buy the current adventure; I'm highly enjoying it and could see myself transporting some of the ideas into a different system.

For me, I think it comes down to the DDN monsters: they're just not up to snuff, IMO. When I switch out the pathfinder monsters and convert them, I find I suddenly enjoy the game a lot more.

 

[Teataine]

Ok, so we're 8 pages in and we've yet to see anything that actually breaks the game. The sneak attacks and multiattacks were discredited or misunderstood.

I just see two powerful exploits (the unkillable fighter/paladin and the extremely high AC dwarf ranger). For the first one I haven't actually seen the math but apparently it requires a very specific build that gimps the character in other areas and comes into play only at high levels (when the PCs are concievably epic heroes, lvl 15 in Next is lvl~23 in 4E). The other also requires a very specific build, a ton of magic items which the PC has no guarantee of (there is no expected wealth/magic items per level in Next), and at least three or four other casters in the party, all concentrating/maintaining a spell on the AC dude. This is all extremely circumstantial. For the unhittable dwarf, the Dragon or Balor would probably just breathe fire/throw a meteor swarm, teleport/fly away if it's playing at least half smart. And it's reasonable to expect the monster math will be buffed with everything we've seen.

And we're talking about a playtest build, which we were specificaly told wasn't focusing on the math. We know the game got at least 6-8 months internal playtesting that focused on fixing the numbers, something we didn't see.

So far, I don't see anything alarming. And if you find a potentially broken exploit like the immortal paladin, instead of posting about it here, alert the WotC team so they can fix it before it goes to print. That's the purpose of opening the game to the community anyway.