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

[Argyle King]

Seems way too early to say this about next. Are these things you have encountered in actual play or just theoretical problems. My experience with theoretical problems is I often don 'to encounter them myself during play.

All of the things I have in mind are things I've noticed in actual play. I've been attending playtesting sessions and Encounters sessions at a local gaming store. There is one session a week; I've been attending for a little over 3 months now.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think it's reasonable to say that, if the game is intended to be balanced between warriors and wizards, that you shouldn't have to create a tricky build as a melee fighter in order to do equivalent damage to a spellcaster.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Concerns

With dev comments like "It's about the story, not the math!" and so much focus on "Does this feel like D&D?" I'm not surprised that the play test rules are so breakable.

Maybe the actual game will be better, but I won't be surprised if it's just as breakable. After all, brokenness is part of Ye Olde D&D Tradition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it's reasonable to say that, if the game is intended to be balanced between warriors and wizards, that you shouldn't have to create a tricky build as a melee fighter in order to do equivalent damage to a spellcaster.

I haven't been following the next playtests too closely, but for me to be concerned about this , it would depend on specifics. If are talking the classic wizard spells that can do more damage than fighters at higher levels, but are limited by factors like memorization requirements, xp progressions, casting times, etc, then i am not concerned. I want to have the classic spell casters in the game with the classic spells. Others may find this problematic, but i wouldn't. But if it is something different from the pastwhere the mage is now suddenly consistently doing more damage than the fighter every round with no worry about spell slots or casting times, then it would be a problem. But everything i have heard from people i know involved in playtests suggests i probably won't have many issues with next's approach to class balance.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

*shrug*

I think the 'borkeness' of things is starting to show up more and more because the designers of 5e have slowly (over the past 8 months to a year or so) drifted farther and farther from "Base game to add your own stuff to", and closer and closer to "Uber-kewl powerz and lazer-cats!...pew!...mew!...pew!".

What I mean by that, is simple; it's easier to give, than receive. If Multiclassing had one of the first sentences say something like "Multiclassing is an option that some DM's may want to make available in their game. Here are a list of typical multiclass combinations that work well together. [insert list of class-combo's]. Of course, a DM may wish to open all classes to all combinations, but this option can produce some odd, unusually powerful or unusually weak characters". Problem solved.

Its FAR easier for a DM to tell his group "Ok, I'm letting Barbarians multiclass now. You can substitute Fighter with Barbarian for any of the listed combos"...or even "Any class combo is fine for this game. It's wide open". But going the other way? Where players are *expecting* to be able to make whatever monstrosity they can dream up, and then be told "Uh, no", by the DM? Lets just say in the first scenario, everyone has smiles on their faces....whilst in the second one, everyone has frowns.

(would you rather win $1,000,000 and be told that after taxes and whatnot you get $100,000...or would your rather win $100,000 and be told it's all yours, free and clear? Same result, but different attitude).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[fjw70]

With dev comments like "It's about the story, not the math."

I don't recall that comment. Do you have a link?

 

[billd91]

Maybe the actual game will be better, but I won't be surprised if it's just as breakable. After all, brokenness is part of Ye Olde D&D Tradition.

It's part of the tradition of RPGs in general. You can make fantastically broken characters in Champions and GURPS even though other PCs are built on the same point limits. You can build nigh unstoppable Marines in battle dress with FGMPs in Traveller that the average scout armed with a body pistol can't deal with. You can build a wickedly unbalanced group of heroes in Villains and Vigilantes with a Green Arrow type at one end and a Turtle armored, giant sized, super strong Gamera monstrosity on the other. It's not just D&D.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't recall that comment. Do you have a link?

Sorry, all I remember is that it was in an early article about magical items, and that it killed my interest in 5e.

It's part of the tradition of RPGs in general. You can make fantastically broken characters in Champions and GURPS even though other PCs are built on the same point limits. You can build nigh unstoppable Marines in battle dress with FGMPs in Traveller that the average scout armed with a body pistol can't deal with. You can build a wickedly unbalanced group of heroes in Villains and Vigilantes with a Green Arrow type at one end and a Turtle armored, giant sized, super strong Gamera monstrosity on the other. It's not just D&D.

Absolutely true; brokenness is a time-honored rpg tradition that D&D began.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's part of the tradition of RPGs in general. You can make fantastically broken characters in Champions and GURPS even though other PCs are built on the same point limits. You can build nigh unstoppable Marines in battle dress with FGMPs in Traveller that the average scout armed with a body pistol can't deal with. You can build a wickedly unbalanced group of heroes in Villains and Vigilantes with a Green Arrow type at one end and a Turtle armored, giant sized, super strong Gamera monstrosity on the other. It's not just D&D.

On the other hand in very few of those games is being broken an in character choice as it is for D&D spellcasters that use Vancian casting and therefore can tweak their own spell lists. Which spells do they prepare? (Well, it is in Traveller - but that's because Iron Man can beat up Tony Stark).

 

[xazil]

Right now most of the overpoweredness comes in via the multiclassing rules which only just appeared before they stopped playtesting. While there are some nice subtle costs ,like your level 4 ability increase/feat is delayed by multiclassing and the fact most classes get their stuff over the first three levels instead at first,slapping two classes together can make broken things.

A few examples:

Monk/Bard I would say is something that gives the bard some needed punch while the bard buffing takes the monks many attacks over the edge.

A fighter/rogue can also do similar to your monk/rogue in a more traditional looking character.

Cleric of Life 1/Enchantment mage gets heavy armour and shield plus disadvantage on incoming melee attacks, and full spellcasting progression at the cost of a level behind on top spells available for the gain of healing spells you can boost up spell levels.


Of course again, we are looking at some of the first iterations of the multiclassing rules.