What really breaks the game in 5e?

[Naerytar]

My definition of "breaking the game":


1. Trivializing combat
In that
a) when running one of the official adventures the DM has to regularly adjust the modules encounters to keep things challenging
b) when running a custom campaign the DM is heaviliy limited in what monsters he can use in combats, because a high percentage of monsters can't deal with a certain ability/spell/combo/etc.

or

2. Trivializing quests
An ability/spell/combo/etc. takes the challenge out of a large number of quests or a certain type of quest.

or

3. Generally requires DM intervention
Because it just takes the fun out of the game for the other players.

Note that especially point 3 is pretty subjective, so I'm just asking for opinions and experiences here.

Bonus question: Is there anything in Tier 1/2 that fits the description above? I honestly can't think of anything...

[heavyfuel]

Generally, I agree with your definitions.


Bonus question: Is there anything in Tier 1/2 that fits the description above? I honestly can't think of anything...

Depending on the encounter or the quest, it's pretty easy to trivialize them as early as level 1. An enemy with no ranged abilities in an open field is trivialized by a guy with a bow. A quest to find some super rare medicine in the woods can be trivialized by a Paladin with Lay on Hands or a Cleric with Lesser Restoration (requires lv 3 instead o 1).

If you were looking for things that can consistently trivialize encounters and quests in Tiers 1 and 2, I don't think they exist.

[Skylivedk]

In short, minions.

Enough mastiffs in tier 1, upgrade as you go along. Flying can also do it in tier 1

[Zhorn]

The 5min adventuring day.

A good deal of the other aspects of the game balances out much easier (or at least doesn't swing wildly out of balance) when you do the recommended

2-3 encounters > short rest > 2-3 encounters > short rest > 2-3 encounters > long rest

type of adventuring day. Much less call for additional tweaks and balance fixing when you don't choose to break it in the first place.

[Dork_Forge]

Simulacrum loop cheese and the build up of too many minions between adventures.

[Osuniev]

Utility spells such as "Detect Thoughts", "Circle of Truth", "Locate Object", "Speak With Dead", "Find the Path" can definitely trivialize many quests if these rely on an investigation and don't take these spells into account.

It's possible to adapt the mystery, either :
- to deny the use of the spell to the players (the Dead will refuse to answer, the suspects know magic and will not allow you to cast Detect Thoughts in front of them, the object is inside a lead box)
- to make the spells part of the normal clue-collecting process of the investigation (the culprit attacked from behind so Speak with Dead won't out him, only give useful clues, the character inside a Circle of Truth will only give misleading truth and the players still have to analyse them)
- by accepting the use of these as a legitimate tools from the player, with an actual cost (the spell slots). (But then the 5 min adventuring day shows its ugly head again, which is why all my investigation/mystery scenario use Gritty Realism)

However it's VERY hard to do so if you don't anticipate them AS YOU'RE BUILDING THE MYSTERY.

[Dienekes]

I would say a level 2 Moon Druid trivializes level appropriate encounters for a day. But they fall off the further from level 2 you go.

[Pex]

From the players' perspective, a DM not accepting that certain obstacles are no longer obstacles and that's supposed to happen.

A staple example is crossing a chasm. A DM may intend for the party to look for a bridge and run encounters along the way. Maybe the party is supposed to walk a pathway down, travel a bit at the bottom having encounters, then walk a pathway up. Maybe the chasm is meant as a dead end, and the party is supposed to travel some other way to get to what's on the other side. However, once the party has access to flying or teleportation of some kind or some means to get everyone across the chasm skipping over the DM's planned encounters the DM complains the ability that enables the crossing is unbalancing, brings out the ban hammer, and complains on the internet how the chasm crossing ability is too powerful and breaking the game.

There is inherent bias involved, from me in bringing this up and this hypothetical DM. I can agree there exists some things PCs could do that break the game. The infamous Simulacrum/Wish chaining and Coffeelock are the gotos. What I'm really talking about here is that the DM should not be fighting against the players using their stuff. If Speak With Dead ruins your murder mystery don't make Speak With Dead useless. Either accept the party has outgrown murder mysteries as a worthy obstacle and move on to something else or allow Speak With Dead to be the means of which the party gains helpful information that furthers the plot. It can identify the assassin but not who hired him. The party then needs to go find the assassin. Accept at some point chasms are no longer obstacles. If anything they're a resource drain, but the players feel good using their stuff to get past it.

[Tanarii]

A staple example is crossing a chasm. A DM may intend for the party to look for a bridge and run encounters along the way. Maybe the party is supposed to walk a pathway down, travel a bit at the bottom having encounters, then walk a pathway up. Maybe the chasm is meant as a dead end, and the party is supposed to travel some other way to get to what's on the other side. However, once the party has access to flying or teleportation of some kind or some means to get everyone across the chasm skipping over the DM's planned encounters the DM complains the ability that enables the crossing is unbalancing, brings out the ban hammer, and complains on the internet how the chasm crossing ability is too powerful and breaking the game.

OTOH these kinds of things theoretically work great in a nicely Jaquay'd dungeon intended as reusable content for an open table. Or even one for a single party the PCs will revisit regularly.

Angry DMs apparently abandoned Megadungeon project comes to mind. Early on he created the idea of "gates" for alternate paths or new areas that could be bypassed by common use spells (Levitating/Flying, Waterbreathing, Dimension Door). Then he started designating areas behind them so they would be appropriate for characters using them, and inserted the idea of "keys" to enable those without the spells to access them at later points. In other words, those with access to the spells would get early access, but no one would be permanently locked out. Well thought out conceptually IMO.

(Quotes to indicate they wouldn't necessarily be actual gates or keys)

[Trask]

If anything they're a resource drain, but the players feel good using their stuff to get past it.

While I do agree that this is fundamentally true, I also think its reasonable for a lot of DMs to get exasperated with it. There comes a point where almost every single obstacle except combat is by-passable by magical cheat code unless you start making them really convoluted and/or blatantly biased against magic (the chasm is covered in an anti-magic field). Once you get to that point, it gets a little fatiguing for every single classic adventure obstacle (how will you cross the pit? how will you climb the tower? how will you get there in time? how will you figure out who the killer is?) to have the one universal answer of "I use magic." It also doesn't help that 90% of these things are bundled up into only a few classes, while the others have to play the game "normally", but that's a different discussion. Some classes get to decide which parts of the game they don't want to play, bad for a game that supposedly supports three pillars of game play.

Basically, I think that some magic does kind of "break the game" if the game to you involves things like exploration and intrigue. If it just involves combat and talk rp then it doesn't.

[Contrast]

I think Wish/Sim and coffeelock are the only two things that I'd personally look to actually hard rule/control somehow as a matter of course.

At levels 2-4 a moon druid can be pretty dominating - wildshape and spells allows you to be amazing at exploration and combat while high wisdom/Guidance/Enhance Ability means you're probably still one of the top contributors in skills/social stuff. Even then I don't think its so bad I think you really need to step in with the nerf hammer however.

[Yakmala]

A Level 1 Variant Human using point buy can have a 22 Passive Perception (16 Wisdom, Expertise in Perception, Observant Feat). That should be enough to spot any Tier 1 perception based challenge.

Along the same lines, a Weapon of Warning. Uncommon magic item. No one in the party can be surprised. This can trivialize a number of encounters.

Flight is another big problem for outdoor encounters. Flight is not that hard to acquire, either through the 3rd level spell or an uncommon magic item. A Warlock with a Broom of Flying, the Spell Sniper feat and Eldritch Spear invocation can sling Eldritch Blasts from 600' feet in the air. I've seen this in Tier 1 games.

[Necroanswer]

Banishment and Polymorph can trivialize encounters that weren't designed with these spells in mind.