• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

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).

If we're going to look at whether the math works rather than other considerations, you pretty much have to throw out the rarity of the items. That will be one of the first restrictive elements of the game to go out the window in favor the DM's or players' desires.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If we're going to look at whether the math works rather than other considerations, you pretty much have to throw out the rarity of the items. That will be one of the first restrictive elements of the game to go out the window in favor the DM's or players' desires.

So, if we're discussing the 3E math, we should assume wealth by level of 10,000,000 gp? Why don't we see what happens when you throw in a Hand of Vecna and a Rod of Seven Parts? What about a 4E character who starts with all +6 gear?

If you're going to shower your PCs with powerful magic items, they're going to be crazy powerful, and you the DM are going to have some work to keep things under control. That's always been true. I wouldn't mind a few stacking limitations (for instance, I don't think the two ioun stones should stack), but in general I think it's okay to allow stacking.
 
Last edited:

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).

So you can get up to an AC 33, with just +1 items. It's unclear to me if items will go to +2 or more, so obviously it could go higher.

I am not sure anything in the game can hit you at AC 33, baring a crit. A Balor, for example, has a +8 attack.

Now +6 of that is from spells, but +2 of it is from a Ranger spell, and Rangers get the Defense ability as well, so this character can be a Mountain Dwarf Ranger.

It wouldn't be hard to multi-class to get a couple of those, but even if you remove all the spell bonuses you don't cast yourself you're still looking at AC 29. And if you eliminate the Ioun Stone's, it's still 27. That's just your race bonus, your class bonus, the barkskin spell you cast on yourself (lasts up to an hour, 2nd level spell), +1 plate, +1 shield, and a ring of protection. I don't think that's too unusual by mid to high level. And yet, a friggen Balor demon would need to roll a 19 or better to hit you.

Two points.
1. Spells are limited. AC drops to 27 if you aren't spell-buffed. I don't feel it is unreasonable to become nigh unhittable for a combat at the cost of 4 spells and a bunch of items you aren't likely to have in most campaigns. If that is really what someone is going for with their character, I wouldn't complain too terribly much.
2. This is very much opined prediction, but I expect monsters to use the same proficiency bonus as PC in the released game. There is no reason not to. It's a win-win. If the Balor is actually using the correct attack bonus, and actually wielding a real vorpal sword, his total bonus would be +16. He'd be hitting the unbuffed character 50% of the time, and he'd still be hitting the character spell-buffed on a 17+. Of course, he'd be hitting most characters most of the time, which makes him properly scary for a level 20 monster.

But as far as the math in general, I expect it to come out pretty good in the final game. 4e is generally considered to be about as good as mathematical balance is in D&D, and the same people are working on doing that in 4e.

I completely understand why the designers did the public playtest as they did regarding math vs. feel. It was a concept test and bug spot catch. They knew it was their in-house and close playtesting groups who were going to be handling the details of the math, and what they needed from us was to know if it felt right as D&D.

At the same time I also understand the objection that if the math is messed up while they are working on everything else, it will be difficult to get it to work out at the last minute.

I agree with WotC's sequence on this however, because my experience tells me that getting a lot of math finished and then realizing you need to entirely chuck the portions of the system that math was addressing is much more time consuming than getting the system concept locked down (with just enough mathematical attention to see that is is doable) and then finishing the math. Math is more for the developers than for the designers to worry about.
 

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.

If their intentions were so good, why couldn't they walk the change back out or use their choices in a more moderate fashion? Good intentions allow all sorts of adjustments for the group's benefit. I've yet to see a problem arrived at via good intentions that broke apart a game.
 

So, if we're discussing the 3E math, we should assume wealth by level of 10,000,000 gp? Why don't we see what happens when you throw in a Hand of Vecna and a Rod of Seven Parts? What about a 4E character who starts with all +6 gear?

Considering the number of campaigns I've been in that never bothered to follow a wealth by level guideline, even in 3e, and the number of campaigns that introduced powerful artifacts at low level, they probably should think about it. Honestly, what's one of the most ignored guidelines in 3e? The Wealth by Level guideline.
 

If their intentions were so good, why couldn't they walk the change back out or use their choices in a more moderate fashion? Good intentions allow all sorts of adjustments for the group's benefit. I've yet to see a problem arrived at via good intentions that broke apart a game.

It depends on who we're talking about.

One guy ended up with a surprisingly weak character compared to the others (a "newbie trap") and was soured on D&D as a consequence. He didn't want to remake an entire new character just because the rest of us were more powerful, but he didn't want to suck either. It was one of several other contributing factors that killed that campaign but that player never got back to D&D as far as I know. He stuck to other games instead.

Another did tone things down when the problems were pointed out to him but he felt punished for no real reason other than that he accidentally ended up being very powerful and he clearly didn't enjoy that campaign as much as he did before.

I've also seen a DM who simply didn't want to gainsay what the rulebook said, trusting the books written by experts. If this Druid was so powerful... well, then that must be what they wanted. So he kept throwing out things that could challenge the Druid even though the Paladin and the Rogue could barely keep up. But if it's in the PHB it must be legit. Probably the Paladin's own fault he's not pulling his weight. (Not all people who play this game are as well-informed as we might be.)

And so forth. Just because you've never seen something happen doesn't mean others haven't seen it happen.
 

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 [edit] ranger/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.

It's 27 AC, but I agree, I think that's not a crazy high cap for AC and the higher level monsters need a bit higher attack bonus.

My guess is they will (or should) make barkskin not stack with armor. And my guess is the +1 ring of protection benefit to AC should probably not stack with the +1 benefit to AC of the armor. Possibly the Mountain Dwarf +1 bonus to AC shouldn't stack with the Defense class ability of the Ranger (and Fighter and Paladin). I am not sure which of these stacking issues will play out that way, but likely the realistic cap is around 25 AC.

The funny thing is, that Mountain Dwarf (+1 AC race) Ranger 5 (+1 AC Defense) / Mage 2 (Aura Disadvantage) with just three "normal" magic items (+1 plate armor (19 AC), +1 shield (+3 AC), +1 ring of protection (+1 AC)) casting Barksin (+2 AC) isn't a one-trick pony (total AC 27, Disadvantage). They devoted two class-choices to AC (Defense and the Mage's Aura), one or two spell slots (Barkskin), and the rest is likely stuff any PC might want. They have all their mage spells, most of their ranger spells, most of their other ranger and other mage abilities, and they're probably quite effective in dealing damage, in handling non-combat encounters, and in handling exploration.

You could also go Mountain Dwarf Paladin 2 (Defense) / Druid 5 (Barkskin, Elemental Mantel spell = Immunity to Fire), with the three magic items, and solo a Red Dragon. It needs a natural 20 to hit with any of it's attacks, and you're immune to it's breath weapon. That's a 7th level PC, with no magic items, able to solo a 13th level Red Dragon.
 

Two points.
1. Spells are limited. AC drops to 27 if you aren't spell-buffed. I don't feel it is unreasonable to become nigh unhittable for a combat at the cost of 4 spells and a bunch of items you aren't likely to have in most campaigns. If that is really what someone is going for with their character, I wouldn't complain too terribly much.

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.
 

(It is always going to be possible to break the game, especially the playtest that is being worked on for mathematical balance right now. Pointing out problems with this particular build won't "fix" the system, I'm just trying to provide a counterpoint - let's agree that things are breakable, but be accurate about how and how bad ;-)

It's 27 AC, but I agree, I think that's not a crazy high cap for AC and the higher level monsters need a bit higher attack bonus.

My guess is they will (or should) make barkskin not stack with armor. And my guess is the +1 ring of protection benefit to AC should probably not stack with the +1 benefit to AC of the armor. Possibly the Mountain Dwarf +1 bonus to AC shouldn't stack with the Defense class ability of the Ranger (and Fighter and Paladin). I am not sure which of these stacking issues will play out that way, but likely the realistic cap is around 25 AC.

The funny thing is, that Mountain Dwarf (+1 AC race) Ranger 5 (+1 AC Defense) / Mage 2 (Aura Disadvantage) with just three "normal" magic items (+1 plate armor (19 AC), +1 shield (+3 AC), +1 ring of protection (+1 AC)) casting Barksin (+2 AC) isn't a one-trick pony (total AC 27, Disadvantage). They devoted two class-choices to AC (Defense and the Mage's Aura), one or two spell slots (Barkskin), and the rest is likely stuff any PC might want. They have all their mage spells, most of their ranger spells, most of their other ranger and other mage abilities, and they're probably quite effective in dealing damage, in handling non-combat encounters, and in handling exploration.

You could also go Mountain Dwarf Paladin 2 (Defense) / Druid 5 (Barkskin, Elemental Mantel spell = Immunity to Fire), with the three magic items, and solo a Red Dragon. It needs a natural 20 to hit with any of it's attacks, and you're immune to it's breath weapon. That's a 7th level PC, with no magic items, able to solo a 13th level Red Dragon.

* magical +X shields still don't exist in the playtest rules, and this appears to be intentional
* the magical items you mention are not "normal". They're rare and very rare - if you follow the rules as written, it is unlikely you will have the set you mention by level 7. Sure, the GM can hand out more stuff, but there will (as per the Q&A this week) be rules to scale challenges according to the amount of stuff you give out. So the playtest *is* broken if you break these rules, but in ways that the full game should (hopefully) not be.

But the biggest one? Dragons are intelligent. They understand magic and are vindictive.
Try that trick on a dragon I'm controlling and it would fly off and wait out of range for ten minutes, then burn you to a crisp :-)

As a side note... there's a thing here that should be clarified. Dragons get "Magic resistance: The dragon has advantage on saving thows against magical effect". Now, it's not in the rules as written but I'd seriously consider that cancelling out the disadvantage you impose with your magical aura. I hope the final rules will tighten this up, but I think I would - on balance - rule in the dragon's favour on this one. It fits the narrative better, which is important to me.
 

My guess is they will (or should) make barkskin not stack with armor. And my guess is the +1 ring of protection benefit to AC should probably not stack with the +1 benefit to AC of the armor. Possibly the Mountain Dwarf +1 bonus to AC shouldn't stack with the Defense class ability of the Ranger (and Fighter and Paladin). I am not sure which of these stacking issues will play out that way, but likely the realistic cap is around 25 AC.

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.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top