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

[ExploderWizard]

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.

The obvious way to accomplish this is to have fewer game elements. I don't have to spend time playing balance cop in my OD&D campaign. If there is an insistance of having more options that provide MOAR POWERZ and these keep getting added to the system, then the price is more overhead for GMs.

I don't want to play balance cop either, so I only run those systems that don't require it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

For accuracy:

Total AC 27, all foes have Disadvantage when attacking him.

Actual ability:
"Any creature within 10feet of you has disadvantage on melee attacks against you while you can take actions. 
Creatures that cannot be charmed are immune to this effect. "

So nearly all.

As the highest attack bonus in the game so far is +8 (and that is only for the highest level monsters in the game), ....

Storm Giant is +11 with a 15' reach.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As long as the game allows the imagination of actual people to influence play there won't be an unbreakable system.

No. There won't be an unbreakable setting. But that need not happen because people didn't do the maths.

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?

It ought to be. Because we shouldn't accept faulty products.

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

Breaking FUDGE is ... a challenge. So is breaking any published *World game. Or Fate (the way to break Fate is through obviously shattered aspects that stick out like sore thumbs). It's when you have too many moving parts that spanners appear in the works.

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

The difference here is that what some see as dull others see as laden with potential (Fate springs to mind). And what some see as fascinating and deep others see as a boring straightjacket (3e springs to mind for me and I'm aware others would say 4e). Different people have different tastes.

 

[Mistwell]

For accuracy:


Actual ability:
"Any creature within 10feet of you has disadvantage on melee attacks against you while you can take actions. 
Creatures that cannot be charmed are immune to this effect. "

So nearly all.




Storm Giant is +11 with a 15' reach.

Ah I missed that one, good catch!

 

[Teataine]

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.

Of course, I'd like to see more stuff like that posted here. I apologize if I was overly dismissive, I'm just used to people being critical of the playtest rules without actually addressing the fact this is a playtest and the designers should be informed of any bugs we find.

As for the build itself, I did read the thread and I was addressing the specifically ridiculously high AC that's achieved by piling up all the possible bonuses. That number is indeed farily silly but it's extremely circumstantial and improbable, like I said.

As for the 27 AC+disadvantage mountain dwarf ranger/mage, it could be problematic, but not necessarily. 27 seems to be pretty much the limit to what you can get within the bounded accuracy paradigm anyway, so while this character does get it extremely early (lvl 7), it's not exactly out of the ballpark. It's possible to achieve the same AC with different class/item combinations, so I'm assuming the devs are aware of this, and it's not a freak anomaly, but merely a very high (or highest possible) AC. I'm also assuming the monsters in the latest Bestiary are missing a Proficiency/level-based bonus to attacks which was introduced to PCs only in the latest packets. So, unbalanced? Probably, given the level at which it can be achieved. But I wouldn't call it game breaking quite yet.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It ought to be. Because we shouldn't accept faulty products.

Faulty products? Wait, didn't you just say.......

The difference here is that what some see as dull others see as laden with potential (Fate springs to mind). And what some see as fascinating and deep others see as a boring straightjacket (3e springs to mind for me and I'm aware others would say 4e). Different people have different tastes.

So 'faulty product' seems to be at odds with 'different people have different tastes'.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So 'faulty product' seems to be at odds with 'different people have different tastes'.

Nope. I won't buy brussel sprouts because I can't stand the things. This doesn't mean they are faulty. It just means they are sprouts. And as long as they are sold claiming to be sprouts that's fine.

A faulty product is one that doesn't do what it is supposed to when I try to use it the way it is meant to be used. (Or one with a lot of small print to try to cover that up). If turning on the TV gives me an electric shock, that's faulty even if I'll get more use out of it than the sprouts.

And a game that claims, even implicitly to be balanced, and that I can break accidently by using obvious choices to me fits the definition of faulty. (Pun-Pun is not evidence of a fault, that's deliberate system abuse and not something you could do unless you were trying).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Nope. I won't buy brussel sprouts because I can't stand the things. This doesn't mean they are faulty. It just means they are sprouts. And as long as they are sold claiming to be sprouts that's fine.

A faulty product is one that doesn't do what it is supposed to when I try to use it the way it is meant to be used. (Or one with a lot of small print to try to cover that up). If turning on the TV gives me an electric shock, that's faulty even if I'll get more use out of it than the sprouts.

And a game that claims, even implicitly to be balanced, and that I can break accidently by using obvious choices to me fits the definition of faulty. (Pun-Pun is not evidence of a fault, that's deliberate system abuse and not something you could do unless you were trying).

Games with tons of options and fiddly moving parts become brussel sprouts.

OK problem solved.

Otherwise you just keep buying brussel sprouts advertised as green beans or broccoli.

 

[Cybit]

Note - the assumption of even a +1 weapon or shield at higher levels is not necessarily a good one. The way bounded accuracy is currently set up, any magic item legitimately increases your AC relative to all attack bonuses. So if you have +3 due to magic items...monsters aren't really going to find a way to make that up. The game assumes that magic items are non existent for the most part.

I suspect magic bonuses stacking will not make it into the final game.

That said - I will pass along the magic item + spell stacking issue and the fighter / paladin combo as well.

 

[Mistwell]

And a game that claims, even implicitly to be balanced, and that I can break accidently by using obvious choices to me fits the definition of faulty. (Pun-Pun is not evidence of a fault, that's deliberate system abuse and not something you could do unless you were trying).

Naw I was with you up until the final part. If it does not make the claim, then it does not make the claim. There is no implication of balance, that's your inference. They make lots of claims about the game, and I don't see any implied balance claims being made.