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

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Good points.

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.

As long as the game allows the imagination of actual people to influence play there won't be an unbreakable system. Also consider the motivations of those attempting to make money on the sale of game systems. Is an unbreakable system that never needs a new edition in thier best interests?

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.

Examples? There may be systems that are easier or harder to exploit, but the burden of proving 'good intentions ' is a heavy one.

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.

Yeah pretty much.

If a system will 'break' only by doing 12 impossible things before breakfast is the system really broken? White room situations that will likely never see daylight in actual play shouldn't be taken seriously. Insisting that a ruleset be so tightly designed involves reducing player input to proscribed pre-written code.

'Broken' can be fixed with a bit of cooperation and civil discourse between people. Dull as dishwater can only be abandoned.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Examples? There may be systems that are easier or harder to exploit, but the burden of proving 'good intentions ' is a heavy one.

Besides the examples I already gave you mean? No way. If you're already saying there is some burden of proof on "good intentions" then this is not a conversation worth having, as there is no way for me to ever prove to you what my friends were thinking 10 years ago. Come on now, be reasonable.

 

[Dausuul]

With regard to the immortal paladin, I wouldn't say it's a crippling build, exactly, but it's certainly very demanding; you have to put a lot of your character resources into it. And of course you have to be 15th level! Here's how it works:

1. A 9th-level fighter gets the Defy Death ability: When reduced to 0 hit points by an attack that fails to kill you outright, you get a DC 15 Con save. If you succeed, you are instead reduced to 1 hit point.
2. A 6th-level paladin gets the Aura of Courage ability: As long as you are conscious, you can grant a saving throw bonus equal to your Charisma modifier to any creature within 10 feet of you, including yourself.
3. Fighters are proficient in Constitution saves.
4. By this level, you've earned four ability score boosts, for a total of +8. Use this to achieve Con 20/Cha 18. Your total Constitution save is now +5 (Con) +4 (Cha) +5 (proficiency) = +14. Thus, you will never roll less than a 15.
5. Under current playtest rules, a 1 does not automatically fail a saving throw. Therefore, you will never fail your Con save and always be left at 1 hit point. The only way you can die from hit point damage is if you're dealt enough damage to reduce you to negative max hit points in one shot. Thanks to your 20 Con and 15d10 hit dice, your max hit points are 169, so you'd have to take 170 points of damage from a single attack. As far as I know there is nothing in 5E that can deal this much damage in one go.

This is a legitimately broken exploit IMO, but there are plenty of ways Wizards could fix it, and it's not something anyone is going to stumble on by accident. You have to go well out of your way to make it happen. Then some smart-ass wizard comes along and casts trap the soul on you.

Examples? There may be systems that are easier or harder to exploit, but the burden of proving 'good intentions ' is a heavy one.

I've seen it happen a number of times, usually when a player has a natural talent for optimization but isn't aware of how powerful a class can get. One example was when I made a 3E druid for a Planescape campaign. My past experience with companion creatures (mostly wizard familiars) suggested they tended to be on the weak side, so I made sure to choose options that would give me a good solid tiger companion. I figured it would provide a sturdy tank for me and the other casters in the party. What I ended up with was an engine of clawing, biting death that put the PCs completely in the shade--including my own! I was a reverse Vaarsuvius: Instead of half the time forgetting that my druid had an animal companion, I was half the time forgetting that my animal companion had a druid.

Once the problem became apparent, the DM and I took steps to rectify it, but by that time we'd already played several sessions with a brokenly powerful character in the party. A better balanced system wouldn't have required rectification in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

It can be interesting to think about different ways of handling stacking.

For instance, instead of more-or-less static modifiers, you can use "augments" which are created dynamically in play (eg by a skill check, like aid another; or by the action required to activate an item) and therefore have stacking controlled in that way.

Eg maybe Ring of Protection requires that you use your reaction, or your swift spell action, to gain the bonus.

Concentration is a version of this sort of rationing, but there are other existing elements in action resolution that can be drawn upon to go further, while still preserving the "naturalistic" feel that D&Dnext is going for.

 

[Teataine]

With regard to the immortal paladin, I wouldn't say it's a crippling build, exactly, but it's certainly very demanding; you have to put a lot of your character resources into it. And of course you have to be 15th level! Here's how it works:

1. A 9th-level fighter gets the Defy Death ability: When reduced to 0 hit points by an attack that fails to kill you outright, you get a DC 15 Con save. If you succeed, you are instead reduced to 1 hit point.
2. A 6th-level paladin gets the Aura of Courage ability: As long as you are conscious, you can grant a saving throw bonus equal to your Charisma modifier to any creature within 10 feet of you, including yourself.
3. Fighters are proficient in Constitution saves.
4. By this level, you've earned four ability score boosts, for a total of +8. Use this to achieve Con 20/Cha 18. Your total Constitution save is now +5 (Con) +4 (Cha) +5 (proficiency) = +14. Thus, you will never roll less than a 15.
5. Under current playtest rules, a 1 does not automatically fail a Constitution save. Therefore, you will never fail your Con save and always be left at 1 hit point. The only way you can die from hit point damage is if you're dealt enough damage to reduce you to negative max hit points in one shot. Thanks to your 20 Con and 15d10 hit dice, your max hit points are 169, so you'd have to take 170 points of damage from a single attack. As far as I know there is nothing in 5E that can deal this much damage in one go.

This is a legitimately broken exploit IMO, but there are also a number of ways to fix it, and it's not something anyone is going to stumble on by accident. You have to go well out of your way to make it happen. Then some smart-ass wizard comes along and casts trap the soul on you. Oops. Bet you wish you'd put some of those stat points into Wisdom now...

Thank you for that breakdown. That does indeed seem worrysome, but the PC is indeed still vulnerable to a number of other effects that bypass hit points.

But yeah, I would say Defy Death probably needs some kind of minor nerf.

Also I noticed a lot of people are missreading some AC rules. A lot of the spells and special abilities don't actually give an AC bonus but set you base AC at a specific number. Which means they don't stack with each other or wearing armour, you simply take the highest base. So some "high AC" builds out there (like the Barbarian/Monk) don't actually work with the rules as written and intended.

Still, I'm not going to blindly trust the system or the designers. If anyone has any more broken stuff, please point it out. That's the way to fix things.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Under current playtest rules, a 1 does not automatically fail a saving throw. Therefore, you will never fail your Con save and always be left at 1 hit point. The only way you can die from hit point damage is if you're dealt enough damage to reduce you to negative max hit points in one shot. Thanks to your 20 Con and 15d10 hit dice, your max hit points are 169, so you'd have to take 170 points of damage from a single attack. As far as I know there is nothing in 5E that can deal this much damage in one go. This is a legitimately broken exploit IMO, but there are also a number of ways to fix it, and it's not something anyone is going to stumble on by accident. You have to go well out of your way to make it happen. Then some smart-ass wizard comes along and casts trap the soul on you. Oops.

I'm not super familliar with all the playtest rules but everyone gets max hitpoints? It seems a bit odd to have variable hit dice if everyone gets maximum. In my understanding max HP means YOUR personal max HP, not the maximum the class is allowed. So if you have average HP (94) then it would take 95 to kill you.

I've seen it happen a number of times, usually when a player has a natural talent for optimization but isn't aware of how powerful a class can get. One example was when I made a 3E druid for a Planescape campaign. My past experience with companion creatures suggested they tended to be on the weak side, so I made sure to choose options that would give me a good solid tiger companion. I figured it would provide a sturdy tank for me and the other casters in the party. What I ended up with was an engine of clawing, biting death that put the PCs completely in the shade--including my own! I was a reverse Vaarsuvius: Instead of half the time forgetting that my druid had an animal companion, I was half the time forgetting that my animal companion had a druid.

Once the problem became apparent, the DM and I took steps to rectify it, but by that time we'd already played several sessions with a brokenly powerful character in the party. A better balanced system wouldn't have required rectification in the first place.

Part of the DMs job is to regulate what splat gets included in the game. In this case something was missed, and people worked it out. If I want to play a game that has set parameters and limited imput/interaction then my computer is nearby. I don't need other people for that experience. When I want to play a tabletop rpg, then it is for the human interaction experience. Humans are capable of working around issues. There is no page fault or broken code in a human run rpg. If the ideal situation is to make people superfluous in tabletop rpgs then I will lose interest in playing them.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Edit: Disregard, the following is wrong.

I'm not super familliar with all the playtest rules but everyone gets max hitpoints? It seems a bit odd to have variable hit dice if everyone gets maximum. In my understanding max HP means YOUR personal max HP, not the maximum the class is allowed. So if you have average HP (94) then it would take 95 to kill you.

No, you only get maximum hit points at first level.

Not that it really matters, because Dausuul is mistaken: massive damage can't kill the Fighter/Paladin either. In order for massive damage to kick in, you must first be reduced to 0 hp. Only after this has happened do you compare the remainder to your maximum hp. But since you can't actually drop to 0 it doesn't matter. You could literally do ten million damage to this character and he'd still roll a save and shrug it off.

(For those who want to check: the rules are on page 22-23 of the How To Play pdf.)

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not super familliar with all the playtest rules but everyone gets max hitpoints? It seems a bit odd to have variable hit dice if everyone gets maximum. In my understanding max HP means YOUR personal max HP, not the maximum the class is allowed. So if you have average HP (94) then it would take 95 to kill you.

You're forgetting that part of this build involves raising your Constitution to 20.

Part of the DMs job is to regulate what splat gets included in the game. In this case something was missed, and people worked it out. If I want to play a game that has set parameters and limited imput/interaction then my computer is nearby. I don't need other people for that experience. When I want to play a tabletop rpg, then it is for the human interaction experience. Humans are capable of working around issues. There is no page fault or broken code in a human run rpg. If the ideal situation is to make people superfluous in tabletop rpgs then I will lose interest in playing them.

Oh, piffle. This is such a ridiculous straw man it hardly deserves a reply. Nobody is talking about "making people superfluous," just about having the designers do a better job of balancing game elements so DMs and players don't have to take up the slack so often. Like everyone else in my group, I don't have unlimited time or energy for DMing, and I'd rather spend that time planning and executing awesome adventures than playing balance cop.

Fortunately, the designers seem to agree. I think 5E is pretty well balanced for a playtest--it's already a great deal better than 3E ever was--and I expect the final release to be quite solid. Sure, there may be a few exploits like the immortal paladin that slip through, but you have to go well out of your way to make those happen.

Not that it really matters, because Dausuul is mistaken: massive damage can't kill the Fighter/Paladin either. In order for massive damage to kick in, you must first be reduced to 0 hp.

Defy Death very clearly states that you only get a Con save if you are not dealt enough damage to kill you outright.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I know it's a long thread, but it's worth reading, and it would prevent some confusion. In this case, it seems like you didn't get to the part that explains that's not the build, just the maximum I could come up with. The basic build requires no other spellcasters.

Mountain Dwarf (+1 AC race) Ranger 5 (+1 AC Defense) / Mage 2 (Aura constantly providing Disadvantage) with three magic items (+1 plate armor (19 AC), +1 shield (+3 AC), +1 ring of protection (+1 AC)), who casts Barksin (+2 AC) on himself. Total AC 27, all foes have Disadvantage when attacking him.

As the highest attack bonus in the game so far is +8 (and that is only for the highest level monsters in the game), I'd say an AC like that is not within the "expected margin". When the highest level creature would need to roll double 19s/20s just to hit with one of their attacks against a PC that isn't even necessarily high level himself, it's an "issue". Of course they can do other things, but we're focusing on this AC issue right now.

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.

Yes I was not saying anything other than describing the AC issue. Though I later describe a Druid build that can solo a red dragon. For completeness, here he is again:

Mountain Dwarf Paladin 2 (Defense) / Druid 5 (Barkskin, Elemental Mantel spell = Immunity to Fire), with the three magic items. It needs a natural 20 to hit with any of it's attacks, and you're immune to it's breath weapon.

And it's reasonable to expect the monster math will be buffed with everything we've seen.

And that is part of the topic. You should read the whole thread. It's a good thread. The question is, should they end some stacking bonuses to deal with this issue, or should they adjust the monster attacks higher, or both? It's a delicate balance with wide reaching ramifications however you choose to deal with it.

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.

I think I should post it here in response to a thread about the topic. That's part of what message boards like this are for, in my opinion.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Nope. Defy Death very clearly states that you only get a Con save if you are not dealt enough damage to kill you outright.

Let me just check, aaaaaand.... yep, you're right. I stand corrected.