D&D 5E What is "broken" in 5e?
Well, to put it mildly, opinions will vary. Even up to and including the definition of "broken". Probably especially that. Few things seem to spark as heated a debate as something being under/over powered/broken.
This is just a quick post, as writing out what the OP wishes would take a bit longer time than what I have right now, but some things in 5e are less well designed (some even poorly designed) than others. It is arguable whether this is what was intended or not, or they just reached a 'good enough' state.
So, to start with: magic. Setting aside the proliferation of spell slinging classes and sub classes that some complain about, or even the time honored 'Spell slingers are over powered compared to mundanes' argument that crops up, I think many of the individual spells are poorly designed and/or poorly worded. It is clear that the designers worked hard to try and overcome the LFQW problem, but there it also seems they ran out of time money to fine tune a lot of it, and as such there are optimal and 'trap' spells that, imho, are not working quite as designed. I'm not talking about spells like Illusory Script when I say trap spells: it is a flavorful world building spell that largely does what it is designed to do; just not something most adventures would take in your standard dungeon crawl campaign. Only the newest and most inexperienced role players would prepare it for such a campaign or expect it to make a difference.
Feats. Not a fan of the design of most of these, and am glad they are optional.
Multiclassing. Every time I hear about an optimal/overpowered combination, it usually involves multiclassing: Sorcerer/paladin with a couple levels of Warlock... It just puts too many design constraints on the class system to take mutli-classing into account. I know a lot of people just want to have their special snow flake character and love it, but there is a reason why this is optional as well.
That's all for now. Maybe more later.
This is just a quick post, as writing out what the OP wishes would take a bit longer time than what I have right now, but some things in 5e are less well designed (some even poorly designed) than others. It is arguable whether this is what was intended or not, or they just reached a 'good enough' state.
So, to start with: magic. Setting aside the proliferation of spell slinging classes and sub classes that some complain about, or even the time honored 'Spell slingers are over powered compared to mundanes' argument that crops up, I think many of the individual spells are poorly designed and/or poorly worded. It is clear that the designers worked hard to try and overcome the LFQW problem, but there it also seems they ran out of time money to fine tune a lot of it, and as such there are optimal and 'trap' spells that, imho, are not working quite as designed. I'm not talking about spells like Illusory Script when I say trap spells: it is a flavorful world building spell that largely does what it is designed to do; just not something most adventures would take in your standard dungeon crawl campaign. Only the newest and most inexperienced role players would prepare it for such a campaign or expect it to make a difference.
Feats. Not a fan of the design of most of these, and am glad they are optional.
Multiclassing. Every time I hear about an optimal/overpowered combination, it usually involves multiclassing: Sorcerer/paladin with a couple levels of Warlock... It just puts too many design constraints on the class system to take mutli-classing into account. I know a lot of people just want to have their special snow flake character and love it, but there is a reason why this is optional as well.
That's all for now. Maybe more later.
1) Doesn't work well - Hiding and Stealth. The rules are vague enough that you cannot expect any consistency among different groups. Some DM's allow a rogue to stealth pretty much every round, others make it nearly impossible for a rogue to stealth in combat.
2) Works too well - Archery/hand crossbows then feats are being used. Without feats they are fine.
3) Doesn't work well - Find Familiar. Everyone gets an owl because it's the one with flyby attack so you can fly in and out to grant advantage without provoking. (By "everyone" I of course mean "players I'm familiar with".). I have all familiars use a standard stat block, and give them either fly-by-attack if they can fly, or the Mobility feat if they cannot. The appearance of the familiar is purely cosmetic. (Warlock familiars are a different issue.)
2) Works too well - Archery/hand crossbows then feats are being used. Without feats they are fine.
3) Doesn't work well - Find Familiar. Everyone gets an owl because it's the one with flyby attack so you can fly in and out to grant advantage without provoking. (By "everyone" I of course mean "players I'm familiar with".). I have all familiars use a standard stat block, and give them either fly-by-attack if they can fly, or the Mobility feat if they cannot. The appearance of the familiar is purely cosmetic. (Warlock familiars are a different issue.)
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Since I didn't see anyone mention it yet, I'll throw in grappling as being completely broken. Nobody should be able to hold a thousand-pound earth elemental to the ground with one hand is it struggles feebly to escape.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
To add to and refine what some others have said:
Excluding a single case of two high-level spells being able to combine for ridiculous effect by strict RAW (a broken element easily fixed by the DM saying "please don't try to wreck the game on purpose"), the things about 5th edition that someone or another says are "broken" are just points where that particular person's approach to the game isn't meshing with the design style of the game.
And in some cases, are actually things that aren't default in the game that the person is insisting upon adding to the game and simultaneously refusing to alter anything that happens from that addition they chose to make which they don't enjoy.
Like someone pouring hot sauce on their sandwich and complaining "This is too hot, hot sauce is broken." while refusing to add something, such as mayonnaise, ranch, or sour cream, to cut the heat down to the level they wanted when they deliberately chose to put hot sauce on their sandwich.
Excluding a single case of two high-level spells being able to combine for ridiculous effect by strict RAW (a broken element easily fixed by the DM saying "please don't try to wreck the game on purpose"), the things about 5th edition that someone or another says are "broken" are just points where that particular person's approach to the game isn't meshing with the design style of the game.
And in some cases, are actually things that aren't default in the game that the person is insisting upon adding to the game and simultaneously refusing to alter anything that happens from that addition they chose to make which they don't enjoy.
Like someone pouring hot sauce on their sandwich and complaining "This is too hot, hot sauce is broken." while refusing to add something, such as mayonnaise, ranch, or sour cream, to cut the heat down to the level they wanted when they deliberately chose to put hot sauce on their sandwich.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
What about Thor (norse myth, not marvel comics)? Beowulf? Maybe Conan? Odysseus was a really strong guy, what about him?
It's not broken, just far more situational than it used to be. You use it when the ammunition on your one attack is limited in some way - it's a special arrow that you don't want to miss with, or it's a ranged attack spell and you don't want to miss and waste the spell slot.
That being said, I've yet to take it on any of my casters because I can usually arrange for Advantage via other means. But I might.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
That's a cool way to fix a problem that arose in your group. Thanks for sharing it.
Thank you also for acknowledging that you didn't mean literally everyone, as that is a clarifying step too many posters forget to make.
Anecdotally, one of my wife's characters has a cat familiar. In part because she refuses to make choices based on what is mechanically more potent, and in part because despite her starting to play D&D in 2006 with 3.5 she loves AD&D 2nd, warts and all, and insisted that she wanted to roll her familiar on the chart that accompanied the find familiar spell back then instead of just choosing from the list in the 5e version of the spell. Her character that does have an owl familiar only does because the campaign was definitely going to result in the characters being dragon riders, so I insisted that everyone make sure to choose flying options for any "pets" they might have so that they'd be less likely to not be of any use.
I just recently completed a failure mode and effects analyses (FMEA) on a small system with very few parts. This thread topic makes me think that you're asking for only one aspect of how to look at a system. The FMEA that I was using looks at 1) The severity of what happens due to the failure, 2) How often does that failure occur, and 3) Is it easy to detect the cause of the failure before it happens?
Some failures in this game design in my opinion include the class design of the following: four elements monk, wild mage sorcerer, circle of the land druid, and the assassin rogue. Some failures of these class designs are more severe than others. The occurrence of these classes being played in my home game or in the AL games is low to very low. The ability to detect that these classes were poorly designed was fairly difficult.
Concerns with each class:
Four elements monk: This class appears to rely on a limited resource. My players of the monk had a hard time feeling like she was contributing in a meaningful way. The one time she felt like she contributed meaningfully was using shatter to collapse a tunnel. A possible solution is to utilize a rework of the Four Elements Monk that is a thread on the topic and is somewhere on the internet.
Wild Mage Sorcerer: This class does not have the versatility of a wizard in spell selection, so it's assumed that it compensates by increasing flexibility in spell casting. The player is concerned that to utilize the flexible spell casting detracts from the quantity of spells available in the day, and thus they are worse off than a wizard of the same level. A possible solution is to allow the spells per level to be 1.5x rounded down the value listed in the spells table.
Circle of the Land Druid: I haven't seen one played. I've tried to think of how to play one or mix it in with a multi-class design. I couldn't seem to make it as good as a tempest cleric or a storm sorcerer in my character concept. No possible solution has been identified a this time.
Assassin Rogue: The idea can work well depending on the game style, but the assassinate feature does not work well with dungeon dive style of game play. The other features in the class do not work very well in a game that is more focused on dungeon raiding and has very little in the line of political intrigue or espionage. A possible solution is to add a poison specialty feature to the class and rework the assassinate feature to be similar to the Battlemaster Fighter maneuvers.
Some spells that are broken are Hunters Mark and Hex. The severity of the failure is significant. The occurrence is frequent, and the detection is nearly impossible.
Concerns with spells:
Hunters Mark and Hex: My understanding of the rules on these spells is that they are intended to end if they are not moved to a creature as a bonus action before combat ends. This does not work well for the Warlock class. This may work well for the Ranger class. As the rules are written in the PH, it is easy to interpret that the spell does not end at the end of combat. A possible solution is to allow the spell to run for the full duration based on the concentration value listed.
Encounter design is broken. The severity is variable based on the player capability and expectations. The occurrence is frequent. The detection is difficult prior to running several games and receiving feedback from players.
Encounter design: 1) I believe the design intent is to use several NPC creatures in a combat to ensure there is a level of threat felt by the players. A single creature in a combat is usually overwhelmed and will die before the players feel there is a threat. Since several creatures must be used, it makes the game seem to run longer as the DM processes the actions of several creatures. 2) The encounter build tables list adjectives to describe how an encounter should feel. In many cases my players have reported they do not feel that adjective is accurate for the encounter. Therefore the DMG table provides inaccurate information. A possible solution is to design encounters based on the recommended daily XP (DRXP) value. Establish a minimum and maximum percent of that DRXP value for an encounter through testing. Test if the DRXP value listed in the DMG is accurate enough to build encounters around.
Normally, after a failure is identified and weighted by looking at the severity, occurrence, and detection values then a possible fix is identified. Assuming that fix is implemented then the severity, occurrence, and detection values are reviewed again. Hopefully the resulting value is found to lower after the fix.
Some failures in this game design in my opinion include the class design of the following: four elements monk, wild mage sorcerer, circle of the land druid, and the assassin rogue. Some failures of these class designs are more severe than others. The occurrence of these classes being played in my home game or in the AL games is low to very low. The ability to detect that these classes were poorly designed was fairly difficult.
Concerns with each class:
Four elements monk: This class appears to rely on a limited resource. My players of the monk had a hard time feeling like she was contributing in a meaningful way. The one time she felt like she contributed meaningfully was using shatter to collapse a tunnel. A possible solution is to utilize a rework of the Four Elements Monk that is a thread on the topic and is somewhere on the internet.
Wild Mage Sorcerer: This class does not have the versatility of a wizard in spell selection, so it's assumed that it compensates by increasing flexibility in spell casting. The player is concerned that to utilize the flexible spell casting detracts from the quantity of spells available in the day, and thus they are worse off than a wizard of the same level. A possible solution is to allow the spells per level to be 1.5x rounded down the value listed in the spells table.
Circle of the Land Druid: I haven't seen one played. I've tried to think of how to play one or mix it in with a multi-class design. I couldn't seem to make it as good as a tempest cleric or a storm sorcerer in my character concept. No possible solution has been identified a this time.
Assassin Rogue: The idea can work well depending on the game style, but the assassinate feature does not work well with dungeon dive style of game play. The other features in the class do not work very well in a game that is more focused on dungeon raiding and has very little in the line of political intrigue or espionage. A possible solution is to add a poison specialty feature to the class and rework the assassinate feature to be similar to the Battlemaster Fighter maneuvers.
Some spells that are broken are Hunters Mark and Hex. The severity of the failure is significant. The occurrence is frequent, and the detection is nearly impossible.
Concerns with spells:
Hunters Mark and Hex: My understanding of the rules on these spells is that they are intended to end if they are not moved to a creature as a bonus action before combat ends. This does not work well for the Warlock class. This may work well for the Ranger class. As the rules are written in the PH, it is easy to interpret that the spell does not end at the end of combat. A possible solution is to allow the spell to run for the full duration based on the concentration value listed.
Encounter design is broken. The severity is variable based on the player capability and expectations. The occurrence is frequent. The detection is difficult prior to running several games and receiving feedback from players.
Encounter design: 1) I believe the design intent is to use several NPC creatures in a combat to ensure there is a level of threat felt by the players. A single creature in a combat is usually overwhelmed and will die before the players feel there is a threat. Since several creatures must be used, it makes the game seem to run longer as the DM processes the actions of several creatures. 2) The encounter build tables list adjectives to describe how an encounter should feel. In many cases my players have reported they do not feel that adjective is accurate for the encounter. Therefore the DMG table provides inaccurate information. A possible solution is to design encounters based on the recommended daily XP (DRXP) value. Establish a minimum and maximum percent of that DRXP value for an encounter through testing. Test if the DRXP value listed in the DMG is accurate enough to build encounters around.
Normally, after a failure is identified and weighted by looking at the severity, occurrence, and detection values then a possible fix is identified. Assuming that fix is implemented then the severity, occurrence, and detection values are reviewed again. Hopefully the resulting value is found to lower after the fix.
Satyrn
First Post
At this very moment I am sitting at a bar with a pork sandwich in front of me. There is also a choice of hot sauces, including Tabasco and a habenero barbeque.
You are responsible for what happens next!
