More would be gained if D&D would finally stop with the dungeon crawler mentality with combat as only worthwhile activity and do the final step in becoming a RPG where combat is just one part out of many. That way you would not need a X combat per day recommendation.
D&D 5E What is "broken" in 5e?
More would be gained if D&D would finally stop with the dungeon crawler mentality with combat as only worthwhile activity and do the final step in becoming a RPG where combat is just one part out of many. That way you would not need a X combat per day recommendation.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I scored in the top 2% when I took my ASVAB, and I wanted a job in aviation. They couldn't find one, so they were going to make me a linguist. At the last minute, a job opened for a UH-60 Blackhawk. In high school I took a couple years of Spanish and Japanese, then Korean when I lived in Korea, and then German when I lived in Germany, but never more than a year or two, which I really regret because I never learned any of them. Only bits and pieces. And it totally screws me up, because I'll substitute words in one language for the other without realizing it. I.e, I'll say a sentence in Spanish, but will throw in a Korean word subconsciously if I don't remember what the Spanish word is. Confusion all around.
"Pardoname Odashi! Donde esta el hwachangshil? Danka senor."
Darkness
Hand and Eye of Piratecat [Moderator]
CapnZapp, please only aim the argument - not at the poster or their motivations.
Saelorn, please don't say you're going to block someone. It's rude.
If you have any questions, PM me
-Darkness,
EN World moderator
Caliburn101
Explorer
Indeed - nothing about the system is broken, in holistic terms (i.e. not just small specific things the Moon Druid being OP or the BM Ranger being UP) there are just inflexible ways of playing it that self-limit the many options available.
If you want a high gold, high magic item game you can... easily... it takes little work. My current Greyhawk campaign is like that - everyone maxed out on attunements and rich enough to own a castle and several towns and villages. They fund wars, bribe guilds and use their gold in a way that makes the game richer and more like Game of Thrones where THEY are the players of the Great Game.
What's not to love!?
In my homebrew 'Bastion' campaign, almost the complete opposite is true. Much high magic is lost and magical items are as rare as rocking horse droppings and the characters are realistically poor. But hey, surprise, the game is equally playable and equally very easy to run.
I didn't even need to write anything down in terms of houserules - there was simply no need.
If you don't think the rules support your own style of play in these regards, then you probably need to revisit them and challenge any assumptions you think you see. I think some people read things into the rules, or don't focus on the GM flexibility design element of it being 'your game'.
It really is your game if you want it to be!
5th Edition is not 4th Edition, nor 3rd - as one of WoTC stated design goals, it harkens back to the days of 1st and 2nd Edition, when CR didn't exist, guidance on GM'ing was far scarcer and less rigid and creative flexibility within the rules was consequently greater.
I for one think that's great, and I applaud WoTC for making 5th Edition the way it is.
It is neither a problem, nor broken - and a few niggles aside, it's a great system.
Last edited:
Harzel
Adventurer
Oh, yeah, I am glad it is not just me! Except mine is a little more hierarchical. My Spanish is a lot better than my German or Russian, so it is almost always a Spanish word infiltrating the German or Russian.
In terms of role playing I have not ran across anything really "broken" yet.
In terms of balance there are some things that cause unbalance and some things either my DM or my players have complained about. It is important to note imbalance is not the same as broken. Using the luck feat as an example; it is more powerful than most (any?) other feat and more powerful than an ability score bonus. That said if your half-orc barbarian wants to be the strongest guy on the planet and that is how he role plays he is not going to take the luck feat. If players are just out to have the most powerful character these things can break the game, but if players are really into role playing and having the most colorful/unique character they won't.
Here are some things I think are not ideal although I would not, and have not changed them:
1. The entire ranger class is underpowered
2. compared to other wizards a bladesinger is a bit overpowered in a small party, not as much in a large party
3. The luck feat as you mention is overpowered
4. Sneak attack can be devastating. If there was one thing I would change that I haven't this is it. It is not really overpowered compared to other classes but it is very rules oriented. As such every battle the rogue (and often the whole party) is trying to figure out how to get sneak attack dice and enemies trying to deny it. It makes many battles focused on positioning so as to enable/deny sneak attack. I would would like a cooldown period for sneak attack like some monsters have for their abilities.
The one that is changed in my game (pet peeve):
1. Orcs should be lawful .... or at least some of them should like those in Thay.
In terms of balance there are some things that cause unbalance and some things either my DM or my players have complained about. It is important to note imbalance is not the same as broken. Using the luck feat as an example; it is more powerful than most (any?) other feat and more powerful than an ability score bonus. That said if your half-orc barbarian wants to be the strongest guy on the planet and that is how he role plays he is not going to take the luck feat. If players are just out to have the most powerful character these things can break the game, but if players are really into role playing and having the most colorful/unique character they won't.
Here are some things I think are not ideal although I would not, and have not changed them:
1. The entire ranger class is underpowered
2. compared to other wizards a bladesinger is a bit overpowered in a small party, not as much in a large party
3. The luck feat as you mention is overpowered
4. Sneak attack can be devastating. If there was one thing I would change that I haven't this is it. It is not really overpowered compared to other classes but it is very rules oriented. As such every battle the rogue (and often the whole party) is trying to figure out how to get sneak attack dice and enemies trying to deny it. It makes many battles focused on positioning so as to enable/deny sneak attack. I would would like a cooldown period for sneak attack like some monsters have for their abilities.
The one that is changed in my game (pet peeve):
1. Orcs should be lawful .... or at least some of them should like those in Thay.
Last edited:
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
There are plenty of things that are not to people's tastes. But that's true of any game - I would not use the term "broken" to describe the goal of the system not lining up with a GM's goals. It's just a difference. For me to describe something as "broken" I'd say it has to do one of three things:
Those should all be relatively self-explanatory. And they are all objective ways you can conclude something is broken. If you say dwarves cannot be magic users, that is a constraint with a benefit. It's a fluffy benefit (atmosphere); it's one that is maybe only a benefit to a subset of people who like their setting that way, but it has a definable "upside". Conversely if you say that 5e is designed only to handle well a set and narrow range of encounters per day (5-6) and starts to break mechanically if you say do one encounter per day, then that is a constraint without a benefit IF it is possible to design the system in such a way that it would function fine without that being necessary allowing GMs to have more flexibility. Someone could argue that it isn't possible to change that without making the game less suitable for GMs who do want 5-6 encounters per day, but they would have to focus on trying to show that it wasn't possible. Otherwise it stands as an objective criticism of the system.
So anyway, after defining my terms, I would say the fact that D&D 5e breaks significantly if you have few encounters per day. Other game systems manage a widely-variable number of encounters just fine. 5e does not. Combat becomes unbalanced and swingy if players aren't carefully nursing their resources.
- Poorly achieve what is plainly the intended goal.
- Introduce a constraint without benefit / unnecessarily.
- Have a serious deleterious effect on some other aspect for no good reason.
Those should all be relatively self-explanatory. And they are all objective ways you can conclude something is broken. If you say dwarves cannot be magic users, that is a constraint with a benefit. It's a fluffy benefit (atmosphere); it's one that is maybe only a benefit to a subset of people who like their setting that way, but it has a definable "upside". Conversely if you say that 5e is designed only to handle well a set and narrow range of encounters per day (5-6) and starts to break mechanically if you say do one encounter per day, then that is a constraint without a benefit IF it is possible to design the system in such a way that it would function fine without that being necessary allowing GMs to have more flexibility. Someone could argue that it isn't possible to change that without making the game less suitable for GMs who do want 5-6 encounters per day, but they would have to focus on trying to show that it wasn't possible. Otherwise it stands as an objective criticism of the system.
So anyway, after defining my terms, I would say the fact that D&D 5e breaks significantly if you have few encounters per day. Other game systems manage a widely-variable number of encounters just fine. 5e does not. Combat becomes unbalanced and swingy if players aren't carefully nursing their resources.
Last edited:
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I celebrate the diversity of RPGs out there in the market. It doesn't bother me that D&D has held to it's roots. I can (and do) play both it and other styles of RPG.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
There was a thread a while ago about things you liked/disliked in 5e, and while it's not "broken", a dislike I had is that Inspiration is so bolted-on and easy to ignore instead of being more integral. (And part of it is that the implementation is a bit broken, with too much for the DM to memorize and per-session limits how how often you can get rewards for playing your character true.) D&D has had a lousy history of trying to have mechanical effects to encourage roleplay, with the alignment system and paladin's oath in certain editions being the only one with spelled out mechanical effects. I like the idea of a carrot for playing to your character, especially to their flaws and bonds to do things which may not always been the smartest but are definitely the character.
So while it's not "broken" per se, if I was designing 5.5 I would put more weight on it and design it a bit better.
So while it's not "broken" per se, if I was designing 5.5 I would put more weight on it and design it a bit better.
