D&D 5E What official material is considered problematic to the point where it is not balanced and presents a problem?

[Horwath]

Sorry for cutting you off, but I really consider the way different armors aren't equal to be a feature.

Having Hide armor to be strictly inferior is to me definitely not a bug, to pick the perhaps most prominent example. It *should* have the appearance (and stats) of something primitive that you wouldn't choose if you had a choice.

Scalemail (or is it banded mail) - same thing, it *should* be inferior. (Unless it's dragon scales! ) It makes things more interesting, not less.

That is all true, but

They should have implemented armour for every dex score between 8 and 20 and then slap on a filler of cheaper/inferior amours for militia.

Adventures can and will buy the best money can buy, and that is currently studded leather,plate and to a degree breastplate.

So we have covered dex 8, dex 14(maybe 16 with a not so hot feat) and dex 20. There is still that much missing.

 

[Prism]

Adventures can and will buy the best money can buy, and that is currently studded leather,plate and to a degree breastplate.

Characters spend the first 8 levels or so gradually progressing their armour up to the best it can be and then they are pretty much done unless some magic armour comes their way. I'm ok with that.

We use custom special materials and treatments to create some variation, for example one of our characters has a blueshine shield http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Blueshine. I include mithril and adamantine in this category.

 

[nswanson27]

I agree with surprise being an issue. Just make it a surprise round. It's simpler, and everyone seems to assume that already.
Poison I think is also incomplete. The basic poison in PHB is so weak and price is laughable.
Also, the game economy is incomplete. So you've bought your plate armor, ...now what?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've seen a few posters talk about how official D&D material has it's share of problems. Now I can understand that past editions had their problems mechanically, but what problems are their with the current game?

All of It.
Unless you take it in the spirit intended, as a starting point for the Empowered DM to take where he wants and get what his players want out of it,
then None of It.

Sorry, if that sounds dismissive.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

All of It. Unless you take it in the spirit intended, as a starting point for the Empowered DM to take where he wants and get what he wants out of it, then None of It.

Sorry, I know that sounds dismissive.

And yet, it's by far the most accurate assessment of the material made. My only quibble with it is that the two "he" uses could be replaced with "their group" for even greater accuracy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My only quibble with it is that the two "he" uses could be replaced with "their group" for even greater accuracy.

The second one, anyway. I'll fix it. Thanks.

 

[Zhern]

Um, maybe you could put in a couple of doors?

Anti-magic fields!

 

[Corpsetaker]

All of It.
Unless you take it in the spirit intended, as a starting point for the Empowered DM to take where he wants and get what his players want out of it,
then None of It.

Sorry, if that sounds dismissive.

I'm afraid you are going to have to go into more detail Tony.

 

[Willie the Duck]

You cannot claim that meta-gaming is ever a good thing for a role-playing game. At best, there may be times where it is the lesser of two evils. It is objectively and definitionally counter to role-playing, no matter how you may personally feel about it.

You make this statement like it is a self-evident fact. It is not. It is a position. I am genuinely interested in hearing a supporting argument for that position. I am just pointing out that you haven't made such an argument, perhaps because you feel it is unnecessary. I feel that it is.

The short definition of role-playing is "making decisions based on what your character would do". The short definition of meta-gaming is "making decisions based on information that your character does not have, such as the fact that it's a game".

They are directly antithetical. If you are meta-gaming, then you are definitively and objectively not role-playing while you do so. In the context of a role-playing game, meta-gaming is bad. It's in the Ten Commandments of RPGs - Thou Shalt Not Metagame.

How are the directly antithetical? Why is it bad? Who thinks it is bad? What is their reasoning? Why should we listen to them. Where are these ten commandments and the same questions regarding them?

So again, I really think that you need to show your work on how you got to your position. As it stands, it is a little too close to declaring yourself right by self-decree.

 

[Prism]

Also, the game economy is incomplete. So you've bought your plate armor, ...now what?

Buying or crafting magic items? Strongholds?