Is Core 5e Breakable?

[Pilniscus]

I know there are some sweet builds in core 5e... There are builds that can single handedly take on a pit fiend (easy?... at level 20, or lower but lets assume level 20 builds)... However, is it breakable (lets just talk about a level 20 character) in the sense that 3.5e was breakable (although core 3.5e is harder to break than 3.5e including splat)? What do you all think?

[ad_hoc]

Level 20 characters are supposed to break the game.

Wish is a spell you get at level 17.

A level 20 Cleric can auto-succeed on requesting Divine Intervention.

I think a better question is whether 5e meets its goals for each tier of play. I think the answer is 'yes'.

[Pilniscus]

Level 20 characters are supposed to break the game.

Wish is a spell you get at level 17.

A level 20 Cleric can auto-succeed on requesting Divine Intervention.

I think a better question is whether 5e meets its goals for each tier of play. I think the answer is 'yes'.

I think wish is NOT game breaking in the least (you may be able to use it to break an encounter once or twice)... Auto succeeding on a divine intervention is not game breaking in my mind... I meant extreme game breaking in the sense that any sane DM would outright ban that particular build (EDIT: think of 3.5e and all of the builds that are standardly banned or curtailed; pun pun for instance)...

[Yagyujubei]

*cough* wish/simulacrum *cough*

[Regitnui]

On the scale of 3.5e, where outright domination by a single character is possible? No. Even the strongest and most broken of 5e's builds don't overshadow or outstrip other characters or players, and you're guaranteed at least one monster that'll shut even the most minmaxed character down like a decade-old computer in an EMP.

[dejarnjc]

*cough* wish/simulacrum *cough*

I think the rules are left open enough whereby a DM could make a strong argument that only one simulacrum could ever exist at a time. I wouldn't consider this game breaking, just not clearly defined.

Obviously YMMV

[Ravinsild]

On the scale of 3.5e, where outright domination by a single character is possible? No. Even the strongest and most broken of 5e's builds don't overshadow or outstrip other characters or players, and you're guaranteed at least one monster that'll shut even the most minmaxed character down like a decade-old computer in an EMP.

I hope it stays this way forever. The biggest reason I jumped ship from 3.x is due to CoDzilla and things like Pun-Pun. I do not want a broken game. I want a fun game where everyone has a chance.

[King539]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409694-The-Coffee-Drow-A-Sleepless-Sorclock

There. Gets pretty close to 3.5 levels. Add in 3 levels of life cleric for Aid and have as much HP as you want.

[Naanomi]

Outside of extremely lenient DM interpretations of abilities, Widh/Simulacrum is the really only game shattering thing really (and is easily fixable)

[Yagyujubei]

I think the rules are left open enough whereby a DM could make a strong argument that only one simulacrum could ever exist at a time. I wouldn't consider this game breaking, just not clearly defined.

Obviously YMMV

well his request for something that was entirely game breaking to the point that it requires DM intervention, and that's the #1 combo that does from what i can tell. RAW there is nothing stopping you from making a clone army.

[KorvinStarmast]

RAW there is nothing stopping you from making a clone army. A heat wave. You need ice to make the simulacrums.

[Yagyujubei]

A heat wave. You need ice to make the simulacrums.

cone of cold during casting to preserve materials

[Foxhound438]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409694-The-Coffee-Drow-A-Sleepless-Sorclock

There. Gets pretty close to 3.5 levels. Add in 3 levels of life cleric for Aid and have as much HP as you want.

that's not even that good though. other casters that just went pure sorcerer would be able to cast higher level spells half the time, and past the point where 6th level spells come in (you know, the actually possibly game breaking ones) you're only ever in your career getting a limited number of uses or else you lose all the created slots.

[DragonSorcererX]

*cough* wish/simulacrum *cough*

Now, imagine this with another party member that is a Mystic with Fusion (if we get this sort of cool stuff).

[Temperjoke]

Honestly, any game with scenarios and rules that require interpretation can be broken. I think a bigger concern would be, if you're concerned about a game being too broken, why are you playing with people who like to break games?

[King539]

that's not even that good though. other casters that just went pure sorcerer would be able to cast higher level spells half the time, and past the point where 6th level spells come in (you know, the actually possibly game breaking ones) you're only ever in your career getting a limited number of uses or else you lose all the created slots.

Eh... The thing that really breaks it is when you have downtime, and spend all that time just building up more slots.

[Sabeta]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409694-The-Coffee-Drow-A-Sleepless-Sorclock

There. Gets pretty close to 3.5 levels. Add in 3 levels of life cleric for Aid and have as much HP as you want.

Doesn't work. You can't have more sorcery points than Sorcerer Levels. A 3/7 Sorclock is converting 4th level spells. into only 3 points.
Instead, go Sorc X /Warlock 3. You can create 2 x 8 = 16 Points, but as long as you follow that build you never have to lose them. You get full Sorcerer casting with nearly limitless low level spells, as well as access to higher level spells that Java won't be getting.

As stated earlier, you'll have problems with self-healing but that just means use your awesome charisma on any Paladins or Bards your come across.

[pwykersotz]

Honestly, any game with scenarios and rules that require interpretation can be broken. I think a bigger concern would be, if you're concerned about a game being too broken, why are you playing with people who like to break games?

Games that are easy to accidentally break (3.5) are tough to run. It's not necessarily about people being malicious.

[Naanomi]

Also, while there are no pun-puns or hulking planet hurlers 's or the like, there are a few builds that do stupid things at higher levels (necromancer/warlock pounding out short rest minion armies for example)

[RickAllison]

Also, while there are no pun-puns or hulking planet hurlers 's or the like, there are a few builds that do stupid things at higher levels (necromancer/warlock pounding out short rest minion armies for example)

My favorite Wizard/Warlock instead uses Fabricate and Wall of Stone. Destroy the economy by driving the merchants out of business! Or you could have just gone full Wizard and used Meteor Swarm, but this is more fun.

The short answer is no. The long answer is that while high-level PC builds can do some ridiculous things that could have serious world-building consequences (Sorcerer 3/Bard X for Subtle Spell can do terrible things to a world), nothing is anywhere near 3.5 levels. The NecroLock can pose interesting dilemmas as the PC can singlehandedly wage war with enough bones just being constantly sent out, but it is still vulnerable to dragons and such. Simulacrum/Wish does break it, but it relies on a reading that the DM can simply decline and the combo is shut down. Divine Intervention is left to the DM's power.

The short-long answer is that you can break a world using 5e builds with knowledge of how that world functions, but you can't actually break the game like in 3.5.

[Malifice]

*cough* wish/simulacrum *cough*

Both spells invite (and require) DM involvement in them though.

One warps reality and requires a DM to interpret when 'monkey paw' happens (he may very well rule that even though you are emulating a 6th level spell with wish, it's still part of a 'wish loop' and accordingly it still has unforseen consequences) and the other spell creates a self aware AI (with access to reality warping magic via wish) with all the problems that entails.

While that simulacrum clone is required to follow your orders, how exactly it interprets those orders and decides to carry them out is a question for the DM.

[Theodoxus]

Some argue that a simple +1 bonus breaks Bounded Accuracy.
Some argue that simulacrum shenanigans breaks action economy.
Some argue that UA supported multiclassing breaks RAI.

What do you mean by 'breakable?'

Honestly, the only thing that breaks the game is anything the DM can't handle for whatever reason.

[Kane0]

Nah, not really.

People round here have a tendency to make a big deal out of small problems with the system (breaking bounded accuracy, -5/+10 damage feats, wish+simulacrum, devil's sight+darkness, sorcadin supersmites, etc) but compared to 3.X there's no real way to break the game over your knee. It would require some pretty heavy houseruling/homebrewing and a very lenient DM to pull off something big enough to invalidate fellow party members.

Edit: And even then, 'Core' might mean no optional rules like Multiclassing and Feats, so there's actually very little you can do to even try breaking the game in that case.

Edit again: Oh wait, the DMG's optional rules on flanking. Do not use those. Ever.

[SharkForce]

you can do some pretty cheesy and awful stuff with just true polymorph. probably some of it could compete with the less ridiculous 3.x era stuff (i mean, you're not going to get Wish and the Word, or Pun-Pun, or even hulking hurler, but turning a level 17 party member into a CR 17 ancient dragon might get someone close to the point where they can solo entire encounters intended for a level 17 party, though probably not to the point where they're truly as powerful as a full level 17 party at least).

you can also use it to do some pretty... well, for lack of a better word, "odd" things. for example, technically NPCs (as in, anything from the NPC section of the monster manual or adventures or wherever) count as monsters. which means that you can true polymorph a rock into, say... a gladiator. it isn't particularly broken (or at least, no more broken than being able to create any other loyal CR 9 monster), but i know i personally am not particularly thrilled with that particular interpretation of the spell.

it also means that you can technically true polymorph any character of level 12 or higher into an archmage, which... well, let's just say if you want to know how many people feel about that, go dig deep in the forum history and you can find a few very long discussions on the subject.

even then, still not as bad as 3.x i'd say.

[Foxhound438]

Eh... The thing that really breaks it is when you have downtime, and spend all that time just building up more slots.

I mean, maybe at like 10th level when you're actually getting the highest level spells available in bulk, but even then most of the things that "solve" an encounter are concentration- think wall of force off the big thing while you burn through their minions, and past that your non-concentration AOE spells you can use to kill the mook pile are only marginally better than a fireball.

[RickAllison]

Both spells invite (and require) DM involvement in them though.

One warps reality and requires a DM to interpret when 'monkey paw' happens (he may very well rule that even though you are emulating a 6th level spell with wish, it's still part of a 'wish loop' and accordingly it still has unforseen consequences) and the other spell creates a self aware AI (with access to reality warping magic via wish) with all the problems that entails.

While that simulacrum clone is required to follow your orders, how exactly it interprets those orders and decides to carry them out is a question for the DM.

It is specifically the combination of the two the poster was thinking of, where one Simulacrum is created the regular way (so -1500 gp) but the rest are generated through using Wish to Simulacrum which is NOT subject to monkey paw, or even the negative effects of Wish. If you gave a monkey paw for that, you are creating a house rule. The Simulacrum... Yeah. Doesn't really work. Especially since you are playing telephone when commanding any but the first...

[metaridley18]

It is specifically the combination of the two the poster was thinking of, where one Simulacrum is created the regular way (so -1500 gp) but the rest are generated through using Wish to Simulacrum which is NOT subject to monkey paw, or even the negative effects of Wish. If you gave a monkey paw for that, you are creating a house rule. The Simulacrum... Yeah. Doesn't really work. Especially since you are playing telephone when commanding any but the first...

That isn't the way I'd go about it, nor even the most effective way I've seen.


Generate 1 Simulacrum the regular way (-1500 gp).
Have it Wish for a 25,000 gp ruby and crush it for 16 more free castings of Simulacrum and 1000 gp extra.
Cast it 15 more times over the next 2 weeks and use each of them for their Wish, consequence free. You can use it to repeat Simulacrum, having the one that casts it giving the order to follow your commands as if you were the caster, and develop a clone army under your direct command. You can gain Resistance to all damage types. You can gain an arbitrarily large amount of gold. You can cast any spell with no material cost, not that those matter.
Use your 16th free Wish to get another ruby.
Repeat as long as you have the time and desire to do so.


If you carefully avoid over extending the effects of Wish you can gain a pretty arbitrarily large amount of in game power and avoid all the drawbacks in the text. The DM overruling that loop would be in the realm of [reasonable] house rules, depending on the campaign.

[pwykersotz]

Warning! Thread has devolved into Wish/Simulacrum discussion! Abandon thread! I repeat, abandon thread!

[Talamare]

Cleric Warlock provides pretty broken amount of healing

[Ravinsild]

Cleric Warlock provides pretty broken amount of healing

But like...a monster could counterspell or zone of silence/grasping roots this character in place or do something to nullify their impact on a fight so they couldn't make the party essentially invincible. I mean...you know...they can't carry a team by themselves so it's not really broken like 1vTerrasque like Pun-Pun or CoDZilla or anything right?

Like with some clever tactics and ordinary means you could shut this guy down as a DM without outright killing him or anything, right?

[Talamare]

But like...a monster could counterspell or zone of silence/grasping roots this character in place or do something to nullify their impact on a fight so they couldn't make the party essentially invincible. I mean...you know...they can't carry a team by themselves so it's not really broken like 1vTerrasque like Pun-Pun or CoDZilla or anything right?

Like with some clever tactics and ordinary means you could shut this guy down as a DM without outright killing him or anything, right?

I meant more along the lines of "Cleric Warlock provides more healing than anything else that is possible in the game by a very large margin"

With Cleric Bard being the only other one that even comes close... Well, I guess Cleric Bard Warlock would be slightly better than Cleric Warlock, but only at level 18~20 so kinda of too late to really impact the game.

[RickAllison]

Cleric Warlock provides pretty broken amount of healing

Life Cleric 1/Druid 1/Warlock 1 only needs three levels and provides 80 HP of healing every short rest. That is a respectable amount of healing for comparatively little cost. You can then take your pick of which of the three to further invest in, or you can pick a fourth class because "Why not?"

[Talamare]

Life Cleric 1/Druid 1/Warlock 1 only needs three levels and provides 80 HP of healing every short rest. That is a respectable amount of healing for comparatively little cost. You can then take your pick of which of the three to further invest in, or you can pick a fourth class because "Why not?"

Actually that's only 40

You meant to say
Life Cleric 1/Druid 1/Warlock 2

[Grod_The_Giant]

Cleric Warlock provides pretty broken amount of healing
By casting two well-charged healing spells per short rest, at the cost of a strong active contribution? :smallconfused:

Even at-will healing is only marginally problematic; it reduces the impact of attrition, but there are plenty of other resources that still start to run low.

[RickAllison]

Actually that's only 40

You meant to say
Life Cleric 1/Druid 1/Warlock 2

Ahhh, I forgot about that quirk. Still works, Invocations are very nice.

[Willie the Duck]

I think the rules are left open enough whereby a DM could make a strong argument that...


Outside of extremely lenient DM interpretations of abilities...


Honestly, any game with scenarios and rules that require interpretation can be broken...


Both spells invite (and require) DM involvement...

That's the big difference. There is a different culture invested into 5e (usually referred to as "rulings, not rules"), and it is one that kindly acknowledges the DM's gatekeeper role and suggests that searching out abusive interpretations of the gamerules is not conducive to a fun game to play with your friends (or alternately, that pun pun was never more than a white room experiment, and that maybe that's not really that important). Whether you think that is the designers abrogating their responsibility to design a systematically robust game or them finally taking the game back from whining rules-lawyers is a matter of perspective.

Either way, yes, if there is no one at the wheel running the ship, the rules are built loosely enough that there is at least one "on a completely different level as any character who doesn't (can't) use this exploit" exploit. Not surprisingly, the most obvious one is an infinite wish loop.


As to the classic 3e exploits (I'm specifically thinking Pun-Pun, CoDzilla, minionmancy, hulking hurler, ice assassin army, and all-access spellcasters) have either been avoided or ignored.

Pun Pun: avoided - no obscure splat with rules on gaining godly power.
CoDzilla: avoided - Concentration mechanic stops the basic premise. Clerics can be fine in combat, but at best will devote all their energy to approach what a fighter or barbarian can do every short rest.
Minionmancy: avoided/ignored - regular minions are weak. Planar ally makes clear that it doesn't let you puppet master a creature, and planar binding looks like an adventure in and of itself to successfully accomplish.
Ice Assassin: semi-avoided - Simulacrum is pretty abusable, but not free like an ice assassin of an ice assassin.
Hulking Hurler: avoided - large size isn't available to PCs, PrCs don't exist. No poorly thought out using rules in places they were never meant for (closest is using skills in combat, creating the rogue/bard grappling champion)
All-access spellcasters (archivists, spell-to-power erudites, Rainbow Servant-beguiler/dread necromancer/warmage): avoided/embraced - no equivalent for across the board spell selection. Feats or class features allowing plucking 1-3 spells from another class built into system (and balance accounts for this).

[metaridley18]

Minionmancy: avoided/ignored - regular minions are weak. Planar ally makes clear that it doesn't let you puppet master a creature, and planar binding looks like an adventure in and of itself to successfully accomplish.


I'd say this one CAN become a problem but isn't truly game breaking. Summon spells are still very good, Animate Dead + bounded accuracy has some terrifying implications, and of course the already mentioned Simulacrum nonsense.

I think that there are enough DM tools inherent in all the abilities related to minionmancy plus, as you said, the nod that DMs should control players if it becomes a problem, that I wouldn't call any of these truly concerning.

[DragonSorcererX]

Unless you have a Lore Bard to keep casting Bestow Curse - Wisdom (or other character who can debuff without spells) until the summon fails the save, and them you cast 9th Level Geas (because not everyone will cast Detect Magic on them, and not everyone has Remove Curse), but after one year you will probably need to RUN!

[Malifice]

It is specifically the combination of the two the poster was thinking of, where one Simulacrum is created the regular way (so -1500 gp) but the rest are generated through using Wish to Simulacrum which is NOT subject to monkey paw, or even the negative effects of Wish. If you gave a monkey paw for that, you are creating a house rule. The Simulacrum... Yeah. Doesn't really work. Especially since you are playing telephone when commanding any but the first...

Nah man. The DM has exclusive rights to interpret when a spell is being used outside of emulating 'a single 6th level or lower spell'. Context and all that (which is vital when interpreting text).

Wish loops and these sorts of shennanigans are the precise sorts of things that trigger monkey paw.

It aint a house-rule. Just a difference in interpretation. Many a wizard has been brought low via hubris + wish.

Try doing the loop in my campaign and see how far it gets you. An army of hostile simulacrums who all think they're you, and are trying to take over the world sounds fun.

Manshoon style.

[DragonSorcererX]

Nah man. The DM has exclusive rights to interpret when a spell is being used outside of emulating 'a single 8th level or lower spell'. Context and all that (which is vital when interpreting text).

Wish loops and these sorts of shennanigans are the precise sorts of things that trigger monkey paw.

It aint a house-rule. Just a difference in interpretation. Many a wizard has been brought low via hubris + wish.

Try doing the loop in my campaign and see how far it gets you. An army of hostile simulacrums who all think they're you, and are trying to take over the world sounds fun.

Manshoon style.

If you are Lawful Neutral it should be all right (because they will all think they are you, a humanoid fleshy robot...).

[Squiddish]

If you have a lawful stupid DM, one who decides to use every rule exactly as written, then yes.

Otherwise, no.

[DragonSorcererX]

If you have a lawful stupid DM, one who decides to use every rule exactly as written, then yes.

Otherwise, no.

I would use this to troll the Player that tries to do it, and I would never try to do it because I am a lone wolf.

[Sabeta]

I know the thread is about Core 5e, and most wouldn't consider EE Core, but I think Aaracokra deserves a special mention. I vaguely recall that a birdperson can be reasonably expected to solo a Terrasque at level 1 with a +1 Bow and somewhere between 200-600 arrows by just flying over it. I'm sure no sane DM would ever make a level 1 birdperson fight a Terrasque, and most probably wouldn't give them a +1 weapon out the gate, but it's an interesting experiment.

[King539]

Doesn't work. You can't have more sorcery points than Sorcerer Levels. A 3/7 Sorclock is converting 4th level spells. into only 3 points.
Instead, go Sorc X /Warlock 3. You can create 2 x 8 = 16 Points, but as long as you follow that build you never have to lose them. You get full Sorcerer casting with nearly limitless low level spells, as well as access to higher level spells that Java won't be getting.

As stated earlier, you'll have problems with self-healing but that just means use your awesome charisma on any Paladins or Bards your come across.

I meant Sorc X/Lock 3/Life Cleric 3.

[Mith]

I know the thread is about Core 5e, and most wouldn't consider EE Core, but I think Aaracokra deserves a special mention. I vaguely recall that a birdperson can be reasonably expected to solo a Terrasque at level 1 with a +1 Bow and somewhere between 200-600 arrows by just flying over it. I'm sure no sane DM would ever make a level 1 birdperson fight a Terrasque, and most probably wouldn't give them a +1 weapon out the gate, but it's an interesting experiment.

Not to mention that it needs a +1 bow and the capacity for the arrows.

[RickAllison]

I know the thread is about Core 5e, and most wouldn't consider EE Core, but I think Aaracokra deserves a special mention. I vaguely recall that a birdperson can be reasonably expected to solo a Terrasque at level 1 with a +1 Bow and somewhere between 200-600 arrows by just flying over it. I'm sure no sane DM would ever make a level 1 birdperson fight a Terrasque, and most probably wouldn't give them a +1 weapon out the gate, but it's an interesting experiment.

That isn't a problem with the aarakocra so much as the tarrasque being poorly designed. They made an endgame beastie with no recourse for any ranged combat, that was just poor design. By that logic, any build that runs faster than the tarrasque is broken. And really, it isn't that hard to do...

[Asmotherion]

Well, define "break". If you mean break as in abusing RAW interpretations and mechanics to archive something monsterous compared to a normal character, then no, it's not breakable. There is a constant amound of feedback between players and creators of the 5e system, and they provide errata frequently to prevent abilities from being used in ways they were not meant to. So, basically, if something is too game-breacking today, tomorow it just might not work at all, or work on a more logical scale. At the same time, this also confirms which powerful combinations work (when they have been mentioned a couple times), as, if they were not meant to work they would already be included in erratas.

On the other hand, there are some very competitive builds, that meet the top percentage... Basically specific builds that either through specific multiclassing or otherwise choices are even more optimised than... well other optimised characters. I could mention a few infamous builds, but it's not the point of this thread.

Wile 3.5 was indeed fun to some degree, at some point it all became a matter of who had read more books to come up with a broken character for a "broken" competition with his party. Witch led to DM frustration.

I like 5e more than all previous editions, exactly because it's the most balanced edition (in contrast to 3.5), wile at the same time keeps your character options free and gives you a sence of liberty on your options (in contrast to my least favorite 4e). It is also rules-light (in contrast to pathfinder), yet efficient, and gives you the option to have any degree of versality you wish.

[Regitnui]

That isn't a problem with the aarakocra so much as the tarrasque being poorly designed. They made an endgame beastie with no recourse for any ranged combat, that was just poor design. By that logic, any build that runs faster than the tarrasque is broken. And really, it isn't that hard to do...

I personally houserule a variant of the giants' Hurl attack, representing the big Beastie tossing pieces of landscape around. My players are only lvl 3, so it'll be a little while until I can tune that for range and damage.

[Zorku]

I think the rules are left open enough whereby a DM could make a strong argument that only one simulacrum could ever exist at a time.
The problem isn't that "you" are making a thousand simulacrums. It's that you made one, then it made one, then that one made one, then...
Though that's only if you want the army made as fast as you can cast wish.

It's a different creature burning their 9th level slot every time, so nobody ever has more than 1 simulacrum. In order to limit it to one at a time you'd have to stop a party with 2 wizards from each having one at the same time.


A heat wave. You need ice to make the simulacrums.
Well no, you're using the wish spell to bypass cast time and component cost, if my memory serves.



Even at-will healing is only marginally problematic; it reduces the impact of attrition, but there are plenty of other resources that still start to run low.
Except that the whole party can get by with more rounds spent only performing at-will attacks thanks to the 40hp they're getting back after basically every combat.

In my experience player boredom and simply wanting to grab the spotlight leads to much greater resource expenditure than would be optimal with this healing battery, but on paper it puts some insane bloat on the daily resources available to a party.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Except that the whole party can get by with more rounds spent only performing at-will attacks thanks to the 40hp they're getting back after basically every combat.

In my experience player boredom and simply wanting to grab the spotlight leads to much greater resource expenditure than would be optimal with this healing battery, but on paper it puts some insane bloat on the daily resources available to a party.
I'd... imagine you'd want to compensate by upping encounter difficulty instead of just throwing more weak encounters at players? (Which is already a bad idea in my opinion/experience; mowing down half a dozen goblins with at-will attacks does nothing but waste table time)

[Willie the Duck]

Excepting simulacrum and/or wish loops, none of these seem like "breaking" the game as I think of it (something along the lines of throwing the whole thing off-kilter). I think I could throw in a magic item that does: "heals 40 hp/day, in 4 hp chunks. Also, kills all tarrasques on sight (no save)" and it wouldn't destroy the game.

[SharkForce]

Excepting simulacrum and/or wish loops, none of these seem like "breaking" the game as I think of it (something along the lines of throwing the whole thing off-kilter). I think I could throw in a magic item that does: "heals 40 hp/day, in 4 hp chunks. Also, kills all tarrasques on sight (no save)" and it wouldn't destroy the game.

well, to keep it balanced, the kills tarrasque effect should probably have, like, a 3 or 4 minute activation time, at minimum :P

[Talamare]

I think Aaracokra deserves a special mention.
I agree, and personally have changed it to they must land after each of their movements. If they don't they take an exhaust. Safely falling their Speed if they end in mid air.

So by default, they can fly 30 ft (or higher with speed increase, but can't dash). They must either then fall to the ground safely, or they can take an exhaust to stay in the air (and move another 30ft next turn) or dash up 60ft and take ANOTHER exhaust to stay in the air.

Basically it gives them the potential to make insane leaps, but they can't cheese everything, nor can they ruin every height based encounter.

[RickAllison]

I agree, and personally have changed it to they must land after each of their movements. If they don't they take an exhaust. Safely falling their Speed if they end in mid air.

So by default, they can fly 30 ft (or higher with speed increase, but can't dash). They must either then fall to the ground safely, or they can take an exhaust to stay in the air (and move another 30ft next turn) or dash up 60ft and take ANOTHER exhaust to stay in the air.

Basically it gives them the potential to make insane leaps, but they can't cheese everything, nor can they ruin every height based encounter.

Works well enough for an entirely different race. Certainly not an Aarakocra anymore :smallbiggrin:

[Talamare]

Works well enough for an entirely different race. Certainly not an Aarakocra anymore :smallbiggrin:

*shrugs* it's one of those take it or leave it if I'm DMing

Maybe at level 10 or so when flying is more common it's fine

[RickAllison]

*shrugs* it's one of those take it or leave it if I'm DMing

Maybe at level 10 or so when flying is more common it's fine

Always-on flight is a weird thing for DMs because the nature of the campaign has a massive impact on how powerful it is. In dungeon-delving campaigns with low-ceilings, it becomes a very weak ability. In campaigns that routinely involve puzzles or open-air challenges that are trivialized by flying, it becomes OP. In everything else, it is rather balanced since the times where it is overly powerful come up seldom enough for resource expenditures to handle it. Of course, not every DM wants to regularly deal with the hassle of considering 3D movement, but I play with a bunch of math nerds, so that might impact it.

[Zorku]

I'd... imagine you'd want to compensate by upping encounter difficulty instead of just throwing more weak encounters at players? (Which is already a bad idea in my opinion/experience; mowing down half a dozen goblins with at-will attacks does nothing but waste table time)If accurately scaling up combat difficulty is a solution to this overpowered character then it is a solution to all overpowered characters (except maybe our wish loop types.)

More realistically I see trouble with the usual combat structure where everything has got to be a lot more like the boss fight at the end of a dungeon and similar scaling of the boss fight is much more likely to TPK. At the same time, this doesn't solve the issue of the spotlight being unduly focused on one member of the party.


Excepting simulacrum and/or wish loops, none of these seem like "breaking" the game as I think of it (something along the lines of throwing the whole thing off-kilter). I think I could throw in a magic item that does: "heals 40 hp/day, in 4 hp chunks. Also, kills all tarrasques on sight (no save)" and it wouldn't destroy the game.
Then 5e can't be broken the way you think of an edition breaking. The magic item list is more explicitly by DM fiat and generally doesn't have effects that interact strongly with each other, and skills mostly work in the same way.

You can throw things off balance, but only the wish loop really throws things off a cliff.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If accurately scaling up combat difficulty is a solution to this overpowered character then it is a solution to all overpowered characters (except maybe our wish loop types.)
There's a difference between a party-wide power boost like free healing (which was what I was responding to) and an individual power boost like an abusive build (which was not). As long as everyone is on roughly the same power level, you can design adventures for that level and be fine; you only get disruptions when one or two people are operating at very different levels from everyone else.

[furby076]

Excepting simulacrum and/or wish loops, none of these seem like "breaking" the game as I think of it (something along the lines of throwing the whole thing off-kilter). I think I could throw in a magic item that does: "heals 40 hp/day, in 4 hp chunks. Also, kills all tarrasques on sight (no save)" and it wouldn't destroy the game.

I find, that the only dnd game that is broken is the one the dm cannot handle.

Many years ago, i started with a new group. 3.0, and all level 1. Dm had an odd sense of things (rations were more expensive than shields, all his npcs were irish and not scared of any of the pcs..even little old ladies.). One of our players made a half orc barbarian with great axe. On one of the fights, while raging, he rolled a 20 and confirmed. X3 crit. I dont know what imploded more, the orc that died or the DM. For the next 45 minutes he ranted how 3.0 was broken.....

The dm quit, and the half orc barbarian took over dming. He let us do almost anything we wanted, and would beat us only using core rules.
I'm not saying allow extreme stupidness (e.g., pun pun), and that DM would laugh when i showed him the builds, but a competant DM shouldn't be scared that his players found a wicked cool tactic. My main concern is that one player doesnt hog up all the glory.

Also, the one thing that breaks a game, are players who either dont know the rules on their own characters, and take forever to figure out their action. .....and players who argue other players characters when they dont know anything about it

[Spore]

There are a few class combos I would consider as "non-intuitive" and imbalanced. Like an Eldritch Knight having insane AC. Like a Druid 1/Cleric of Life healing extremely much with a single casting of Goodberries. Or like Rogue's Expertise buffing up skill checks in characters that would have no other reason to be a rogue (and should probably not even HAVE sneak attack). Additionally the system's reliance on a few attributes for any given class encourages extravagant class combos that would likely not happen from a pure RP reason. Like Paladin/Warlock (aka the edgelord of light and dark!) or said Cleric/Druid or to an extent even Paladin/Bard.

But these shenanigans are important for the game's health as no one wants a monotonous bland mass of similar classes.

[Knaight]

Games that are easy to accidentally break (3.5) are tough to run. It's not necessarily about people being malicious.

It's a different kind of breaking. 3.5 is the sort of game where just taking feats that make sense across a party can cripple one character (a fighter without a well planned set of synergistic feats) while simultaneously putting a low of power on another (a druid with natural spell), and it's the sort of game where Pun Pun and the locate city bomb exist. However, nobody is accidentally wandering into either Pun Pun or the locate city bomb, and it's that second category that's being asked about here.

For which I'd say that 5e is pretty clear. Simulacrum+Wish is just about the only thing, and while it's a bit iffy it's got nothing on the likes of chain gating solars and is of least concern as being part of that second category anyways. The first category is also drastically reduced.

[pwykersotz]

It's a different kind of breaking. 3.5 is the sort of game where just taking feats that make sense across a party can cripple one character (a fighter without a well planned set of synergistic feats) while simultaneously putting a low of power on another (a druid with natural spell), and it's the sort of game where Pun Pun and the locate city bomb exist. However, nobody is accidentally wandering into either Pun Pun or the locate city bomb, and it's that second category that's being asked about here.

For which I'd say that 5e is pretty clear. Simulacrum+Wish is just about the only thing, and while it's a bit iffy it's got nothing on the likes of chain gating solars and is of least concern as being part of that second category anyways. The first category is also drastically reduced.

While I agree with your point overall, I did not read the quote I responded to that way. There are lots of bad interpretations of the rules that lead to drastic power imbalances that get worked into people's minds by accident early on. One of the common offenders is self/party harm on a critical failure for an attack roll that neuters Fighters and other weapon-using characters. This is often not the intent of the people who implement that rule. They aren't being malicious, even if they're breaking the game.

You are correct of course, the TheoryOp stuff pretty much has to be purposeful. If that was what was meant by that quote then I am in agreement that the player abusing the system should be corrected.

[RickAllison]

There are a few class combos I would consider as "non-intuitive" and imbalanced. Like an Eldritch Knight having insane AC. Like a Druid 1/Cleric of Life healing extremely much with a single casting of Goodberries. Or like Rogue's Expertise buffing up skill checks in characters that would have no other reason to be a rogue (and should probably not even HAVE sneak attack). Additionally the system's reliance on a few attributes for any given class encourages extravagant class combos that would likely not happen from a pure RP reason. Like Paladin/Warlock (aka the edgelord of light and dark!) or said Cleric/Druid or to an extent even Paladin/Bard.

But these shenanigans are important for the game's health as no one wants a monotonous bland mass of similar classes.

1) Does an Eldritch Knight get insane AC? 18 base, +2 from shield, +25 from Shield (limited resource), +1 from the Fighting Style (which they only get one of, so that is a high cost), anything else? Because that looks high, but far from insane. Just looks like someone who is blowing a significant amount of resources and even a class feature to be a highly defensive person and so is a highly defensive person.

2) Life Cleric+Goodberry... Yeah, it is rather silly. I wouldn't say it is imbalanced in terms of class balance as it is an action-poor method of healing and only matters for OOC healing. The DM certainly has to adjust for the party being better able to recover health, but everyone is still on the same relative level. Temporary HP-heavy people may feel like it is worth less, but that is a small cost.

3) I would like to point out that being a "Rogue" can very easily be fluffed so the other abilities make sense. The standard for a Rogue 1 dip can actually be basic learning in a guild, college, or similar environment. Light armor could be anything from fencing to habit as merchants or other people who routinely meet muggers may want a little extra protection. Thieves' tools are harder to fluff, but I hardly think any player who didn't want to be a thief would really care about switching it for another tool while those who do can spin it as just learning for simpler tasks, like having to jimmy a lock at their apartment repeatedly. Skill is versatile. Expertise is pretty evident. Thieves' cant seems bizarre, but it makes sense with a lot of people who either might have to deal with criminals often (merchants would love to know someone is scoping out their store) or academics who want to hide their true research from prying eyes. Finally, Sneak Attack, the hard one. Well, not for formal learning, or anything that might intersect with medicine. Working at a temple, a military camp, or a college, one would be liable to pick up a few things on how the human body works. This can then be applied in actual combat, though they aren't very good at it. Smiths and others familiar with armor could have learned to spot weaknesses in the protection, sailors and those in rougher areas could have picked up some basics from seeing cheap shots and shanking by others and where they were aiming. There are lots of ways to spin a Sneak Attack to fit in how that ability was gained. Cunning Action is much harder, but anyone going for Rogue 2 probably chose that for a reason...

4) There are plenty of valid RP reasons for what seem like conflicting builds. A Vengeance Paladin/Warlock fits perfectly with someone who is so devoted to revenge that they would sell their very soul (then he is just darkness edgelord), while an Ancients/Feylock makes sense for someone who either started with a bargain with the forest fey and later became a champion, or who was a champion and requested the power to do X. Devotion/Fiendlock... I could probably think of something, but that well might be a roll-play build :smallbiggrin:. Cleric/Druid actually makes incredible sense for a multiclass, as the PC can serve both the Old Faith and a particular patron god. Nature Cleric makes the most thematic sense while being an awful combination, but you can argue for just about any cleric domain with it. Knowledge Druids could be sent forth to find and record bioscapes and natural life that is in danger so the Druid Council can address the crises, Light fits perfectly with a Druid associated with the grasslands, desert, or another biome that relies on heavy sunlight, Tempest fits right in as storms are a pure expression of nature's fury and drive biome cycles, and even War can be for someone who serves Mielikki (goddess who protects forests) or Malar (god of the hunt). Trickery is tricky, but you could find something.

This isn't to say that a given person who shows up with those combinations isn't choosing them for the mechanical benefit, but the combinations actually make great thematic sense. It would be rather easy, actually, to stumble into a good combination through nothing more than pursuing an idea for the character rather than the build. This isn't like Pun-Pun where the combinations were so insanely specific as to guarantee powergaming, but more like an archer who picks up Sharpshooter because it makes perfect sense and then finds out how insanely powerful the feat is.

[GilesTheCleric]

Sorry to barge in a bit, but I like to read the 5e forums every now and then.

It seems to me that a lot of folks' definitions of "break" are things like getting infinite of x resource, or in a few cases, having really high stats. But what about breaking the game tactically, rather than strategically? In 3.5, there's a lot of tactical-level spells (and skills and abilities) that allow a single character to dominate fights, skill challenges, or other encounters solo, starting as soon as level 1 if you know what you're doing.

Does 5e have those sorts of, if not broken, but polarizing builds and abilities? I don't remember if it was this thread, but I remember things like force cage being mentioned. Spells of that sort, but before SL 9?

Core 3.5 actually is more broken, on a page count:brokenness basis, than the splats. The designers did get better at balance as they published more material, but it's probably just the extreme things from splats that most people remember. It's not an important point, but I think it's worth mentioning. It makes the argument for core 5e being a way more balanced game than core 3.5 even easier to make.

I expect that 5e, which has started off pretty well balanced, will continue to get cool new things as balance:page count improves as well.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Core 3.5 actually is more broken, on a page count:brokenness basis, than the splats. The designers did get better at balance as they published more material, but it's probably just the extreme things from splats that most people remember. It's not an important point, but I think it's worth mentioning. It makes the argument for core 5e being a way more balanced game than core 3.5 even easier to make.

I expect that 5e, which has started off pretty well balanced, will continue to get cool new things as balance:page count improves as well.

Later 3.5 material, while better balanced on the whole, had much higher optimization floors (and, generally, lower ceilings). Even a poorly built Crusader or Duskblade will wipe the floor with a similarly optimized core character. If you were used to low-power core builds and someone brings in a similarly-built Warblade, you'd cry bloody murder too.

[MeeposFire]

Later 3.5 material, while better balanced on the whole, had much higher optimization floors (and, generally, lower ceilings). Even a poorly built Crusader or Duskblade will wipe the floor with a similarly optimized core character. If you were used to low-power core builds and someone brings in a similarly-built Warblade, you'd cry bloody murder too.


I will say though in all editions I like the higher floor better.

[GilesTheCleric]

Later 3.5 material, while better balanced on the whole, had much higher optimization floors (and, generally, lower ceilings). Even a poorly built Crusader or Duskblade will wipe the floor with a similarly optimized core character. If you were used to low-power core builds and someone brings in a similarly-built Warblade, you'd cry bloody murder too.


An excellent point, Grod, as usual.


I will say though in all editions I like the higher floor better.

I agree; reducing the amount of time needed to learn and function well in a system means more time playing and having fun. 5e seems to have done well with this.

[RickAllison]

An excellent point, Grod, as usual.



I agree; reducing the amount of time needed to learn and function well in a system means more time playing and having fun. 5e seems to have done well with this.

Indeed. Unless one is deliberately sabotaging a character, it is unlikely that a given character would be useless in a given scenario.

[xyianth]

There are a few things that haven't been mentioned that can be difficult to deal with as a DM. Whether that is enough to be considered broken will vary by the DM.

The first one is the contagion spell, specifically when used to inflict slimy doom. The disease stuns you until you save three times to break it. Even legendary saves aren't enough to resist being auto-stunned for multiple rounds. (ok not quite auto since you have to be hit first, but close enough) Personally I banned this spell as it is really meant for DM use anyway and DMs don't need a broken spell to infect things with a disease.

The second one is the true polymorph spell. This spell, more than any other spell or feature, breaks the game. As far as I can tell, as soon as a PC gets the ability to cast this spell, they need only find a safe and private place (hello demiplane) to hole up for 1 hour a day. If they can do so, they can slowly aquire limitless wealth, brokenly powerful artifacts, and can become whatever creature they desire. Permanently. As long as this spell exists, no campaign survives 17th level. (without serious suspension of disbelief) The only saving grace that this spell has is that it actually provides a fantastic plot reason for where all the dragons and their hoards of magical treasure come from. (i.e. powerful wizards, bards, sorcerers, and warlocks become dragons via this spell and then lord it over the world's population; occasionally taking time out to procreate with each other to create baby dragons and then kicking the annoying brats out of the nest to fend for themselves.)

These two are the hardest to deal with. (hence I why I just banned them entirely) But there are certainly other things that can force you to build encounters differently just to account for them:

Moon druids are very tough to challenge at all levels. From 1-6, wild shape is extremely strong. From 7-9, wild shape starts falling off, but conjure woodland beings comes online, so swarms of pixies start wrecking things instead. From 10-17, elemental forms rear their ugly head. From 18-19, they can start casting while wild shaped. And then at 20, well, druids become immortal gods.

The very effective sorcerer 1/warlock 3/sorcerer +16 build can put out enough damage throughout the adventuring day to pretty much kill 1 creature per turn. This will force you to add higher hp targets just to soak some of that excessive damage.

14th level illusionist wizards begin dropping walls all over your battlefields. This is compounded by how few counters exist.

any source of constant or at-will flight can also complicate encounter design significantly.

And finally, if you allow some of the UA material in your game, be warned that some of it is overpowered. (theurge wizard tradition, undying light warlock patron, mystic take two, sharpshooter fighter archetype, favored soul sorcerer origin, etc...)

[Willie the Duck]

as soon as a PC gets the ability to cast this spell, they need only find a safe and private place (hello demiplane)

That's probably worth a separate point. Like 3e, if the DM allows effectively impenetrable personal demiplanes, you are suddenly playing a very different game. Likewise, if the DM allows that to mean an easy avenue to create infinite magic items or artifacts (the 'breaking WBL' equivalent of this edition), then it once again it is breaking the assumed limitations upon the PCs.

[RickAllison]

That's probably worth a separate point. Like 3e, if the DM allows effectively impenetrable personal demiplanes, you are suddenly playing a very different game. Likewise, if the DM allows that to mean an easy avenue to create infinite magic items or artifacts (the 'breaking WBL' equivalent of this edition), then it once again it is breaking the assumed limitations upon the PCs.

Demiplanes are not impenetrable, just hard to get to. To get there, you need either A) knowledge of the Demiplane and someone who can cast Demiplane or another spell to get you there or B) a way to teleport directly to a person without knowing their location. Since I don't think any abilities accomplish B across dimensions (otherwise said person would be wanted by everyone), that leaves A.

Scrying isn't going to work at all. Private Sanctum would be easy to maintain for that Demiplane which blocks teleportation, divination magic, and even planar travel (presumably with a small chunk for the Demiplane door). So reaching it by anything but the Demiplane spell is a no-go since they have to get something there just to find the weak spot anyway. If they stay in the Demiplane at that point, nobody can do much of anything. Just Sanctum with Demiplane blocks retribution, but then they are locked inside because exit invites intrusion. Which is what we want to do!Two scenarios evolve from here, one relatively easy and the other fraught with peril.

The perilous one has the (rightfully) paranoid wizard casting Nondetection while in the Demiplane and then establishing an area as a Private Sanctum planetside. This ensures that so long as he gets back within the 24 hours of Sanctum (he can make his Demiplane Sanctum permanent), no divination magic could see him and he has a place no sensors can enter. He is scry-proof. This means that the only way to get to his Demiplane is to have someone tail him who can communicate from a different plane who is okay with what is essentially suicide. He would be entering an area in full view (because he has to rush in when the wizard does otherwise the wizard can Dispel Magic) of some of the most power mortals in the planes.

A less paranoid wizard can instead be pursued by an Arcane Eye. Much safer.

[rooneg]

From 7-9, wild shape starts falling off, but conjure woodland beings comes online, so swarms of pixies start wrecking things instead.

Umm, RAW you don't get to pick what your conjuration spell summons. If the DM doesn't want you to have pixies you don't get pixies.

[Willie the Duck]

[Big long description two posts ago, snipped for space]

This is exactly what I am referring to, regardless if impenetrable is a word you would agree with. What it in effect means is that if the DM does snipe the wizard pulling this routine, they are going to bleat like bejeezubus about how unrealistic it is... that they have all the right defenses up... that there's no way anyone would be able to find them doing this... blah-ditty-blah-ditty-please-make-it-stop. Obviously it is not literally impenetrable, since killing other high level characters with the same setup is likely what characters in this scenario are spending their time doing. What it does, however, is make the game neigh-unrecognizable to people who want the game to be traipsing through dungeons and fighting dragons with the swords they found in treasure hoards. That's my dividing line for 'broken.'


Umm, RAW you don't get to pick what your conjuration spell summons. If the DM doesn't want you to have pixies you don't get pixies.

A lot of what he said is DM dependent. Whether having the demiplane allows you to 'slowly a[c]quire limitless wealth, brokenly powerful artifacts' depends on whether the DM allows you to just make artifacts without making adventures to acquire the necessaries, etc. It does highlight, however, that the 3e strategies of 'abuse summons, abuse shapechange, abuse demiplanes, break WBL' still exist, even if they have been stunted and blunted behind a wall of greater DM control.

[xyianth]

Umm, RAW you don't get to pick what your conjuration spell summons. If the DM doesn't want you to have pixies you don't get pixies.

You do get to pick what CR it summons though, and if you choose 8 CR 1/4 fey, there are only a handful of options. Unless your DM specifically doesn't allow pixies to show up at all, you will likely get a handful of them each time you cast.

Also, the spell uses the same wording as every other conjure spell regarding what gets summoned. Are you saying that in a battle against a red dragon, using conjure minor elementals would allow the DM to say that every elemental summoned only deals fire damage? If so, that is a **** move, and one that I do not personally agree with. I've always read those conjure spells that let you choose your choice of X number of Y CR creatures as allowing you to pick which creatures show up.

[Willie the Duck]

If so, that is a **** move, and one that I do not personally agree with.

You're worried about DM pulling a **** move in a thread specifically focused on (the theoretical exercise of) whether a player can abuse the written rules to crack the system open wide and run amok?

[SharkForce]

You do get to pick what CR it summons though, and if you choose 8 CR 1/4 fey, there are only a handful of options. Unless your DM specifically doesn't allow pixies to show up at all, you will likely get a handful of them each time you cast.

Also, the spell uses the same wording as every other conjure spell regarding what gets summoned. Are you saying that in a battle against a red dragon, using conjure minor elementals would allow the DM to say that every elemental summoned only deals fire damage? If so, that is a **** move, and one that I do not personally agree with. I've always read those conjure spells that let you choose your choice of X number of Y CR creatures as allowing you to pick which creatures show up.

the elemental summoning spells all require that you summon from an element - that is, if you want fire creatures, you need to have a fire source selected. so with elementals in particular, that is not a concern.

with fey, the problem isn't the spell. it's pixies. their CR should be higher... somewhere between 1/2 and 1, most likely.

fix pixies, and suddenly it isn't a problem that you can get 8 CR 1/4 (or lower) fey from the spell. you would be able to get 2 pixies if they're CR 1, and that sounds a lot more reasonable to me personally.

anyways, the official rule is apparently that the DM decides what shows up (in spite of that not being at all clear from the spell's description). of course, not even AL actually *follows* that rule (they do have a list of approved creatures, but the player decides which ones from that list will show up), so YMMV.

regarding true polymorph and the creation of "stuff": it's pretty questionable to assume that just because it doesn't specify that you can't create magical items, that therefore you can create magical items. it will still let you accumulate a lot of wealth and turn yourself into a powerful creature permanently, of course, so it isn't like the spell is without problems, but i do find it pretty questionable to presume that it can turn a mouse into a staff of the magi just because the spell doesn't specify that it cannot create magic items.

[Grod_The_Giant]

regarding true polymorph and the creation of "stuff": it's pretty questionable to assume that just because it doesn't specify that you can't create magical items, that therefore you can create magical items. it will still let you accumulate a lot of wealth and turn yourself into a powerful creature permanently, of course, so it isn't like the spell is without problems, but i do find it pretty questionable to presume that it can turn a mouse into a staff of the magi just because the spell doesn't specify that it cannot create magic items.
Reminds me of some guy who used to argue that Creation could be used to make artifacts and 5ft cubes full of Goodberries-- it doesn't say you can't, you see....

[xyianth]

One of my biggest issues with 5e is the idea that relying on rule 0 (DM fiat) is somehow new and sufficient to prevent the abuses of previous editions. To be clear, the much maligned 3.X edition also had rule 0 as a basic premise, the problem was NEVER about the DM not having sufficient tools/power to prevent abuse. The problem was forcing DMs to fall back to rule 0 just to stop players from using options presented to them as things they are allowed to do. In this particular regard, 5e is worse than any previous edition. (Though I still believe that 5e is the best overall edition to date.)

Just to clarify, I am not advocating for allowing true polymorph to create magic weapons. In fact, I specifically called the spell out as something I banned because I feel it breaks 5e. (which was the OP's original question: what breaks 5e?) I do believe that it would have been far better if they had simply included the extra line: "This spell cannot make magic items." I can forgive them that though since the spell is still brokenly powerful even with that line. (I'd still ban it)

Regardless, I did not mean to start an argument about anything. Every DM is going to have different opinions about what qualifies as broken. I've actually heard someone else argue that the archery fighting style is broken.

[Willie the Duck]

That's a perfectly reasonable position. I guess I already commented on it.


Whether you think that is the designers abrogating their responsibility to design a systematically robust game or them finally taking the game back from whining rules-lawyers is a matter of perspective.

I think they could have done better. Polymorph, wish, summons (/planar ___) and simulacrum in particular they know from 3e were going to be problems. That said, they knew they weren't going to close every hole. Making it very clear that fixing every hole was not part of their design philosophy gave ample warning about how they expected these issues to be resolved. They have been, for the most part, consistent at least.

I'm not sure whether I like it or not. As someone who has to write technical documents, I do know feel that if they had written the game completely geared towards preventing any abuse, they would have to make compromises that would make the game less readable or less enjoyable for those who don't care about such things (because their players aren't trying to game the system or they are comfortable making judgment calls.

[SharkForce]

Just to clarify, I am not advocating for allowing true polymorph to create magic weapons. In fact, I specifically called the spell out as something I banned because I feel it breaks 5e. (which was the OP's original question: what breaks 5e?) I do believe that it would have been far better if they had simply included the extra line: "This spell cannot make magic items." I can forgive them that though since the spell is still brokenly powerful even with that line. (I'd still ban it)

why would they need to put that line in? you can create an object. nothing says anywhere that you can create an object and empower it with magical abilities. a +1 long sword is not magical because it's made of magic metal, it's magic because someone took some non-magical metal and enchanted it. a +1 enchantment is not an object, so you can't make it.

[Ravinsild]

why would they need to put that line in? you can create an object. nothing says anywhere that you can create an object and empower it with magical abilities. a +1 long sword is not magical because it's made of magic metal, it's magic because someone took some non-magical metal and enchanted it. a +1 enchantment is not an object, so you can't make it.

"I've made a reaaaaally convincing replica of the Book of Vile Darkness....I'll sell it to you for half price? It doesn't actually do anything though." lol that could be pretty funny. Just some guy selling legendary items that are total fakes and have no power.

[RickAllison]

"I've made a reaaaaally convincing replica of the Book of Vile Darkness....I'll sell it to you for half price? It doesn't actually do anything though." lol that could be pretty funny. Just some guy selling legendary items that are total fakes and have no power.

Hey, Gilgamesh (from Final Fantasy) fell for that multiple times. At some point, one has to be real. Right?

[SillyPopeNachos]

Given that 5 is more of a framework than proper system, it all depends on your DM. If they encourage powergaming, any book will have broken combinations. Bear in mind that every strategy has answers, and everything the players come up with will also be available to the enemy, controlled by someone with unlimited resources.

[Knaight]

Given that 5 is more of a framework than proper system, it all depends on your DM. If they encourage powergaming, any book will have broken combinations. Bear in mind that every strategy has answers, and everything the players come up with will also be available to the enemy, controlled by someone with unlimited resources.

Spoken like someone who has never seen an actual framework system. 5e has the specifics, it has characters that can be built without ever making up new material, it has fairly extensive rules.