So 6 months+ on what do you think is actualy broken or OP in this game? Early on I was laughed at for claiming things like bless are broken but over at ENworld sure enough a lot of the power builds are built around abusing sharpshooter/great weapon master. There are also threads like this one.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?420955-Warcaster-polearm-master-and-learning-to-love-the-optimizing
This one is bout yeah old warcaster+polearm mastery+eldritch blast combo. Eldritch blast is a recurring favourite it seemsas it is only a 2 level dip so any charisma based class gets a great damage boost from a 2 level dip in warlock. The Sorlock is still one of the leaders in uber damage builds (Sorcerer XYZ, Warlock2) due to metamagic. In game the Sorlock is a very easy build and it has great nova potential.
Sharpshooter+Crossbow expertise is more or less the most powerful martial combo in the game due to the archery style and this combo removes the drawbacks of using archery in melee. Depending on how you rule hand crossbows over needing a free hand to use it dual wielding a crossbow is a mugs game as you can get the same effect using 1 hand cross bow and using a shield. High AC+ uber damage+ versatility at range. Dex based missile fighter has some of the highest DPM in the game and breaks the game reaosnably early as you do not need to be level 20 as 4 attacks a turn or 7 with action surge at level 11 and +10 damage on each attack is kind of nuts.
The other similar combo is great weapon master+ polearm master. Simialr deal cheese lots of attacks and add +10 damage to each attack. Great Weapon Master also works well by itself or cheesed up with a half orc. The combo is a great one as long as you can negate the -5 penalty to hit.
Accuracy fishing. Even without the -5/+10 damage combos you deal more damage by hitting your opponent more. Bless is still great at doing this and it is actually better than most other buff spells in the game through to level 3 spells anyway. Most of the time it is better than haste as well cast in a level 3 slot as you can get 5 members with its effect and as an added bonus buffs your save.
Not sure what they were thinking when you compare the effects of this one spell to other buff spells such as divine favor, haste, and maybe even improved invisability. Getting advantage is also the other great way to buff accuracy and for the most part this means spell effects (faerie fire, paralysis spells, greater invisability, foresight etc) but at will shove prone effects like shield mastery also work well. Accuracy buffs feed into the -5/+10 damage feats very well of course.
Individual spells broken all by themselves. They worked hard to avoid these but a few slipped through the gaps. Contagion, Foresight, Force Cage and Ottos Irrestible Dance my be the leading contenders ATM. I have used Ottos Dance on a Dragon and for 1 round there is no save and you grant advanatge to everyone else with that spell. I suspect foresight may make higher level games more or less unplayable all by itself, contagion is just stupid.
Mutliclassing. You can't level dip as well as you can in 3E but there are still some great combos available. A land Druid splashing a single level of life cleric gets an uber amount of healing it seems. Splashing a level of cleric is also a good way to pick up heavy armor proficiency for free. Starting as a fighter and then multiclassing into a spell casting class is also a great idea espicially for gish type PCs and I consider this a no brainer option for bladelocks. This type of bladelock below level 11 deals more damage than a fighter, has more hit points and ais stickier than a fighter, has more versatility than a fighter and is better at range than any other fighter short of a sharpshooter+crossbow expertise fighter and it is roughly on par with any other ranged PC using the sharpshooter feat by itself. The 1 level fighter dip is more or less 3 feats rolled into one- resilient constitution, heavy armor, and secon wind+weapon style.
Other funny combos have been discovered like how shield master feat interacts with hex and enhance ability. One can actually knock giants prone if you get inventive enough. The half elf may be a little OP as opposed to out right broken. If feats are not being used I can not see to many default humans being used due to the half elf.
So where are my players at now? They have moved away form the uber damage builds as they kind of wreck the game and they are now aiming more for versatilty and high damage builds but not so broken as to cause massive problems. Some of the solutiopns they are looking for enable various builds to not suck or be trap options or they are looking for ways to make hit points go further. Rather than destroy everything with great weapon master they are mor interested in its cleave effect or adding an extra 1d6 to all damage via hex/hunters mark is more interesting to them. They are also trying to have everyone contribute a bit more to combat to get roughly similar DPM spread out over multiple PCs rather than having 1 or 2 PCs in the party who are broken and concentrating more on defenses as glass cannon PCs often lead to arms races.
Current party level 5.
1 Bladelock (fighter 1/Warlock4) fiend pact, drains hit points.
1 Life Cleric (walking bandaid with warcaster and healer feats)
1 Paladin (Green hippie build)
1 Sorcerer Dragon Fire.
We are also rolling stats a lot more which is reducxing pressure on taking stat buffs and aiming for the most powerful feats.
Similar post on ENworld.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?422517-Analyzing-5E-Overpowered-by-design
I haven't had enough table play with the kinds of people where these become an issue so can't judge
BUT I think a lot (not all) of these issues could be avoided by removing multiclassing. In 5e each class coveres a greater range of concepts (concept not builds) so multiclassing is not needed for most character backstories. Here's an out-take from my 5e review in RPGreview25
Multiclassing, a vestigal limb
When a character gains a level they can choose to add a level in a new class provided they have 13 in an ability score
related to the new class. Traditionally, this was used to support concepts like a burgler who knows a few useful spells.
In D&D 3e and the large number of games modelled after it such as Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft the best option for
some character concepts was a prestige class requiring careful planning at low level to meet the requirements for entry
at high level.
Like most previous editions of the game D&D5e has multiclassing. However, in 5e I feel multiclassing should be a last
resort. Most classes support more character types now and feats and background really broaden the range of concepts
covered. My advice come up with your concept, pick a class that covers the most important parts of the concept, use
background, archetype, and feats to get the rest of the features of your concept if you can. For example, why be a
fighter/wizard when Fighter (Eldritch Knight) with Sage Background and perhaps the Magic Initiate feat does most of
the same stuff? Alternatively, maybe a Warlock (Great Old One) with Soldier background and Moderately Armored
feat could cover your concept. Since Classes are broad and Backgrounds and feats further broaden the options all those
niche classes and prestige classes of previous editions are not really necessary. Multiclassing used to be your goto
option for a lot of concepts in earlier editions. In 5e multiclassing is best regarded as a last resort.
So easily avoided...most op options come from liberal reading of rules and multiclassing cheese. That said, would like less synergy with feats and multiclassing where appropriate. Frankly, they have done a good job overall since almost all choices HURT
Broken is a fairly subjective term....
warpiglet wrote:
The only time multiclassing will become trully obsolete as an option, will be when D&D ditches classes alltogether and present the option of poit-buy class creation. Even then, as long as D&D doesn't ditch classes completely, keeping them as a simple alternative to point-buy class creation, multiclassing would still be a requirement for creating the character you want.
And a good thing that, since multiclassing is where D&D's class system is best at. 4E's multiclassing was thoroughly lackluster at best, thanks to the way classes progressed. On the other hand, 4E's Hybrid rules were the second best thing to happen to 4E. That, more than any other option, let the classes blend roles and flavor, giving them a breath of fresh air.
The first best thing was the Monk, from the same book, for your information :P .
Multiclassing and feats are optional rules and in the optional rules chapter. I don't consider them broken because they are optional.
"Individual spells" can be broken though.
What I find most broken are players who create "builds" rather than "characters".
Zardnaar wrote:
strider13x wrote:
consider a character that can hit on a 2 or better with the -5. Now consider that he still hits on a 2 or better without the -5/+10....
Consider that the higher your chance to hit is the closer you get to overcoming that -5. However the lower your chance to hit is the more it impacts you.
Fir all intents and purposes you negate it by adding easy to get advantage and attack rolls boosts.
Coredump00 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
What is broken? Certain Combos. Nothing in the game that I can think of is stupidly strong by itself.
The most commonly listed broke abilities are:
Bless
Polearm master
Crossbow expertise
Great weapon master
Sharpshooter
eldritch blast
Quicken spell
Scorching Ray
A few specific high level spells.
I submit that that none of these abilities is too strong by itself.
With that said...If I was to list one thing as broke I'd list it as the monks ability to stun an opponent. Maybe I'm overrating it but it seems to be too good to me.
strider13x wrote:
I think bless is really unbalanced. It's broken in the sense that it overshadows so many other spells.
Guidance is also terribly designed and gets broken when you use it effectively which I think is a good way tell whether something is well designed or not. The smart thing to do shouldn't be the thing that makes it janky, disruptive - it should be the natural thing to do.
FrogReaver wrote:
Provably false lol. It's actually demonstrably true...
Coredump00 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Nothing like a trip in the forums to make a time travel. So, we are back to “the fault of the rules-breaking is the player!” Or “the fault of the rules-breaking is the DM who didn’t use his/her ultra-special ban ability!”.
I’m not saying that DMs shouldn’t ban things that seem horribly broken. I’m saying that, if I ever buy this game, I won’t be looking to finish the rules for WotC. That’s not my job, that’s their job.
But then people say “But every system has broken things (to a certain degree)!” But, they forget that they also say “No system is perfect!”. I just wonder…
Seriously, people, stop blaming players or DM. This is getting old really fast. Again. I speak this because of more than one discussion.
Coredump00 wrote:
My short list of broken stuff. As in either signifigantly weak and 'useless' or not working as intended/makes no sense.
Find Steed.....really needs errata. Your horse shouldn't be double casting Cone of Cold.
Potent Cantrip- Sounds like it got changed between beta and live.....Is effectively useless as is.....there are only 2 wizard cantrips it can work on at all....and neither of them are evocation spells...Needs to go back to half damage on a miss.
All abilities that grant access to cantrips. Magic Acolyte, Spell Sniper...etc...Should all allow you to use your 'normal' casting stat instead of the original....Pretty useless to get any attack cantrip if u are forced to use your +1 stat on attack rolls. This would at least allow for some choice diversity.
Simulacrum....obviously broken.
Spell Casting services.....Should include an option for Wizards to rent 'access' to spell books to access new spells for the standard rates. This is more a change for AL.
cassi_brazuca wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Thanks for doing the math 
Zardnaar wrote:
Force Cage isn't broken. The no-save is balanced by the DM adjudicating what enemies can fit inside. "Size" categories only refer to the space controlled by the monster in combat.
PHB 191 wrote:
In my experience, the undesirable stuff (either coz it's OP, or broken, or recreates the godawful "striker" role of 4e):
(1) The -5/+10 mechanic. Easy fix, make it +1 stat instead, turn them into half feats (we did this, works nice).
(2) The summon pixies spell. Delete the line about obeying orders. Works better, caster has to bargain with his creatures if he wants them to cast lots of spells.
(3) Passive perception is broken vs static DCs like traps. Fix: dont use passive perception, just roll like we have for years across many different systems. If it aint broke...
(4) Crossbow expert removing disad from melee shooting. Easy fix: change to +1 Dex, half feat, instead.
That's pretty much it. I should confess I dont allow multiclassing, which takes out a raft of optimising options. I do use an injury and setbacks table for hitting zero hp to discourage whack-a-mole yoyoing, and I've removed revivify, raise dead and resurrection from PC spell lists. Death is pretty permanent in my games.
PS - Contagion isnt broken. As I read it , bearing in mind DMG section on diseases, the effect doesnt happen till you fail 3 saves, not the other way round. So it's actually a real slow acting spell, that yeah, spreads disease to others. A contagion, even.
Updated the OP with a link to similr post on ENworld.
I made my list here.
IMO: the only "broken" thing is simulacrum spam.
Divine casters and to a lesser extent wizards, I mean casters cherry picking their powers is pretty iffy to start with but not being forced to pay opportunity costs at all is just rediculous.
FrogReaver wrote:
So what is actually broken? Nothing. Nothing is broken.
I have yet to see anything listed here that would legitimately 'break' an actual at the table game. Sorry MC luddites, but the dreaded EB/Quicken/Scorching Ray is not going to break a game. Same really for every "uber damage" build. They are a problem if, and only if, throwing hit points at the player is the only way a DM can challenge them. Even simulacrum spam, probably the closest thing to 'broken' listed here, requires a 17th level caster and some investment.
In any event, even if you feel something is 'broken', don't allow it. Since 'broken' is going to be a subjective, individual opinion (e.g., GWM), calling for WOTC to 'nerf' spells, feats, whatever because you don't like them (or can't DM around them) is pretty selfish.
/my two cents
An example of something I did to challenge my players recently -
- I had one of the mini-bosses in HotDQ separate the players by pulling one PC inside, and then slamming the door shut, and placing their back to the door. This prompted the other PCs to rush around the building to the other entrance as there was little chance of opening that door (the base DC was 20 to break the door down as per the adventure). I would give them disadvantage on their checks due to the mini-boss holding it closed with their body weight).
- In that same episode, I had the Episode boss launch an ambush on the PCs. This prompted them to think strategically on their feet, leaping from a 2story window in order to regain tactical advantage. It was a touch and go fight that took 2 1/2 hrs to finish due to all the factors/tactics involved.
And this was in the precon adventures for AL (wherein I was largely straightjacketed as to what I could do to mix up the encounters).
Basic Attack:
1d8+5 * 50% = 4.75
+Sharp Shooter
= +0.125
+archery style
= +0.95
+bless
= +1.1875
+advantage
= +2.375
archery style + sharpshooter (1.075 expected).
= +2.075
(+1 damage synergy bonus).
archery style + sharpshooter + advantage (3.45 expected)
= +6.51125
(+3 damage synergy bonus).
archery + sharpshooter + advantage + bless (4.6375 expected)
= +9.3753125
(+4.7378125 damage synergy bonus).
feartheminotaur wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Advantage is not a flat bonus. It can't be boiled down to a given plus. There's a very useful table that gives percent increases in this article if you're interested:
http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/24/advantage-and-disadvantage-in-dd-next-the-math/
Pompadour64 wrote:
Kayal wrote:
I would like to be objective but this is so much opinion...
For the most part this is the best balance I have seen in dnd. Mind you, party was implicit in AD&D 1st edition since you could disrupt any spell with a shove but with this edition and a point buy everyone has an impact on the game. Hell, even high stat guys don't run away with it! Good job wotc! Terribly shocked surprised and happy at how well done it is
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I'm sure people will be able to find plenty of "broken" bits in 5e, just like in any game with the complexity of an RPG.
I just don't think it's that important an issue. 5e isn't designed with balance in mind, but with flexibility in mind. If you want balance, you, as DM, can impose it, or you, as a player, can exercise restraint and decline to abuse the system.
It's only broken to the extent that you choose not to fix it up to your own standards.
Isn't this the point of challenge ratings? If combat is too easy fight something harder. Maybe give out less XP.
There aren't very many things in 5e that are "broken." Among the few that are are the summoning spells that summon/create multiple creatures (animate dead, conjure animals, conjure woodland beings, etc.), polymorph, true polymorph, simulacrum and wish.
The animate/summoning spells wreck the action economy and make beast master rangers cry. Plus, the options within the spells themselves aren't even balanced with each other. Summoning multiple creatures is significanlty more powerful than summoning single, higher level creatures. Summoning one CR 2 creature is nowhere near as powerful as summoning 8 wolves or pixies, for example.
Polymorph is broken because it lets you assume forms 3 times as powerful as a druid of the same level. Being able to turn into a T Rex at level 8 is just ridiculous. True polymorph is broken because it can be made permanent, removing the concentration limitation. It's also broken for allowing you to transform someone into creatures that should be a match for the entire party, such as ancient dragons. It's even worse when you combine it with simulacrum (a spell that is already bad enough by itself), because you can create a simulacrum and then transform it into an ancient dragon (or whatever).
Wish is broken because of its its ability to duplicate spells that have expensive material components for free. Back in 3.x, wish had an experience point cost to deter abuse, but there is no such cost for using wish this time around. The chance of never being able to cast wish again doesn't apply when you use it to duplicate lower level spells (even though that's the most powerful thing it can do). This is especially problematic when you use it to duplicate simulacrum, giving you a free copy of yourself or someone else every day. All that stuff about having to normally spend money to heal it or it not regaining spell slots doesn't matter when you can just create a new one every day for 0 gp.
[Edit] I forgot wall of force and forcecage. These spells let you trap creatures with no saving throw, and most creatures can't escape (not many creatures can teleport or cast disintegrate). Forcecage is especially problematic, because the cage version lets you shoot the creature with ranged attacks. Unless it has ranged attacks of its own, you can do so from complete safety.
All that said, even the most broken things I've found in 5e don't come close to the game-breaking horrors that people can unleash in 3.x or Pathfinder.
Coredump00 wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Kayal wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
simulacrum is broken, because a simulacrum can cast simulacrum, giving you multiple copies. this get's around the obviously indended limit of 1. with a large supply of rubies, and time, you can make an army of clones. which is still manageable by most DM's.
wish just drops the ruby and time requirements. allowing you to get an army of clones for free, and 7200 times faster.
I would think its safe to say that a Simacrum was never meant to be able to create a second Simacrum. I'd say that counts as casting the spell again.
You know what the funny thing about so-called rule lawyers is? Actual law relies heavily on determining the actual intent of the people who wrote the law in the first place. Rules lawyering relies on going purely by what's on the books, irregardless of how it was meant to work by the designers.
You assume that Law works more than half as intended. That's very much not the case.
Vahnyu wrote:
Kayal wrote:
mellored wrote:
Reius wrote:
Kayal wrote:
mellored wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
feartheminotaur wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
I cannot quite grok why the last sentence of the spell's description uses a plural?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Wha... Huh?!
"...duplicates..."
The sentence defeats itself. Each use of the spell creates a single "duplicate creature". Every time you cast the spell, any duplicates you've made previously are destroyed. How can there ever be more than one duplicate for "any duplicates" to be necessary?
Thus, my comment. Not sure why you'd need Goggle first for any of that.
mellored is more likely right...
Mephi1234 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Here we go right on cue. As usual, someone makes a half-handed comment about something obvious, and the chain of contrarian, argumentative, logic-pretzeling comes flowing out of the darkness...
Also, your argument from authority is a falacy.
Also also, it would be the "the duplicate created..." just as easily. So still no.
Also also also, your guessing. Plain and simple. You can't know any of what you just professed as fact*. But you keep speaking with a matter-of-fact tone.
(*unless you are this "professional editor" of which you speak.)
There is nothing grammicly incorrect about the sentence.
I find a few things problematic (namely, what is commonly mentioned)- but nothing that giving monsters max hp can't control for; but the "broken" thing is simulacrum spam. But I also reject the notion that "its the DM's fault" whenever the designers design a game element that turns out to be problematic. Sure, rpgs are hard to design without flaws, but it's not "rocket science." I'm tired of the excuses, and apologetics, frankly.
But what I find most broken is the idea/notion, "rule zero," that the DM is always right. I don't mean to troll, but I'm so tired of hearing about the DM is always right, and, whatever the DM wants, it's up to the DM, etc. I think it gives too much power to the DM--- and lets face it, the DM is biased in his or her vision of the game (I've yet to meet one in 35 years who was not). The more you can control for that, the better imo. And the more solid the rules, the more you can control for it. But, "passing the buck" onto the DM for game design flaws- expecting the DM to fix things isn't cool either (unless, WotC sends him or her a paycheck). That said, there is also a lot of player cheese out there too. So, player cheese is the player's fault. Game design flaws are the designer's fault. I'm fine with the DM putting the hammer down on player cheese- but I must say, I'm not a fan of making the DM the designer of the game rules- it's too subjective imo- it creates problems (at least, the DM should call for a vote- instead of the notion that "the DM is always right"). I know this is an unpopular position (especially, with the gonadgrods), but that's how I feel.
Thus, I would say I find Simulacrum spam broken, and "Rule Zero" broken.
Kayal wrote:
Yeesh, all this over one spell. I like the passage in the 1st Ed PHB that explains a DM may augment, diminish, add, delete, and/or alter spells with impunity.
Vahnyu wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Kayal wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
feartheminotaur wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
MaXimillion_Zero wrote:
1eejit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
What do I think is actually broken in 5e? The Ranger class. And not in a good way. More in the barely functional way.
1eejit wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
kalil wrote:
mellored wrote:
Reius wrote:
Kayal wrote:
MaXimillion_Zero wrote:
MaXimillion_Zero wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
I try to drive on the right side of the road, over here, in the old UK, but, man, they keep giving me aggro.
Broken
Halfling Lightfoot Rogue with Expertise Stealth, even more so with the Thief Archetype gaining advantage on Stealth checks.
I'll tell you what's broken: My players handbook. Damn glue!
Brock_Landers wrote:
MaXimillion_Zero wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Apart from class balance, encounter balance, and what little there is of a skill system, there's really nothing all that 'broken' about 5e. Especially not in the sense that folks have been picking apart the Simulacrum spell. Sure, it might be 'broken' in the context of a system where each spell of the same level is meant to have about the same amount of power and impact on the game. I don't think even the best-balanced eds of D&D were quite /that/ balanced, though.
The problem isn't that spell, per se - 'fix' it and another 'broken' spell will pop up - but the casting system that lets spells be cast spontaneously in combat, or systematically every day, or the class system that crowds comparably broken spells into the list of a certain class or classes instead of sprinkling them arround more liberally.
So, basically, after 148 posts, what we've got is two typos; one in the PHB and one in the DMG. What about the MM? Aren't there any broken monsters?
BoldItalic wrote:
Kayal wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
A Roper is way to hard for its CR.
I wouldn't say broken but the halfling 'luck' which lets them reroll 1s is pretty useful, not only can they never critically fail, they essentially get advantage on that roll.
if a halfling with a +6 attacks a zombie AC 8 the halfling cannot miss an attack.
Neonflux wrote:
It is interesting how people have issues with small bits in the game (specific, spells, some feats, some monsters, etc) but overall it doesn't really seem to be breaking the game. I'm finding the new paradigm (bounded accuracy mostly) is making 5e quite elastic; it stretches and bends, but doesn't break.
As for the intellect devouerer, it's not like a party will have to fight one every day. Although, I could see a great horror based adventure where pcs are trapped in a long forgotten tomb infested with intellect devouerer and previous hosts. Very scary. (Alien/Invasion of the Body Snatchers inspired)
Good point, I guess that's never come up at my table because no one has ever rolled a second 1. (I have 3 halfling characters playing across the 2 games I DM)
But you're right it's not impossible (to roll a crit, or miss a zombie with a huge attack bonus) but 1in 20 chance is a big difference to 1in 400.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
mellored wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This is another thing I dig about 5th Ed: circumstance, relativity.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So we are really talking a whale with a howitzer, then?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Meh. You may have to make sure those stay in international waters. Cuz those may not be Constitutionally legal. In American you only have the right to arm bears.
And IDC if that's not an American "looking" bear, don't be racist. I like pandas!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
When I dropped the Intellect Devourer question a page a ago, I didn't expect a full flegded discussion about whether or not it could kill a fighter or whether or not that meant it was broken. I mainly brought it up as a joke because I couldn't find any information on "attribute damage." Does a character actually die when her/his Intelligence drops to 0? If so, please tell me what page that rule is on. I was picturing a band of still-living brain-dead adventurers wandering around aimlessly because they weren't smart enough to go on the adventure.
Wow...so, apparently, it's all about the Intellect Devourer.
I was gon' say somefing, but I fail my smart save.
Kayal wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Well, yeah, of course, I could do that. I could also let them find a Scroll of Greater Restoration in the next room. But in a discussion of what might possibly be broken, I'm not sure a houserule really addresses the question, does it? I mean, this might not be "broken" in the sense of being unbalanced, but it sure seems like a gap in the official rules (i.e. you can have a 0 Intelligence, but there's no mod for a 0 Intelligence).
FallingIcicle wrote:
So why does having an int score of 0 matter? Seems there are no rules that change anything based on that?
FrogReaver wrote:
Pompadour64 wrote:
Reius wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Kayal wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Kayal wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Moral: always hire a porter with a wheelbarrow (2sp/day) before venturing forth to places where Intellect Devourers are likely to be encountered, Then, if one of your party is reduced to Int 0, he can be picked up, put into the barrow and wheeled back to the local temple for restoration. The going price for a Greater Restoration seems to be 450gp, or 100gp for the diamond dust if you have an Acolyte amongst you.
Or simply shoot them at range.
12 AC, 21 HP, and a 10' attack range, make it pretty easy to take down as long as you don't get ambushed.
A high level fighter, who basicly can't miss, can kill it with 2-3 attacks from a bow. You don't even need an action surge.
A 2-hander can kill it in 2 attacks pretty much gaurenteed.
That's not even counting battlemaster dice or other features.
Vahnyu wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Intellect devourers are a problem.
To say they are not is like saying monsters that have a relatively lower chance to hit but can 1 shot any character in melee is not a problem. I suppose some feel such a monster would be fine because characters can invest all their resources into AC to defend against the problem and even if the monster kills a character the character can be resurrected as a remedy.....
IMO:
Devour Intelect: Your Int is reduced by 2 (no save). If your Int is reduced to 0, you are stunned. You can recover 2 Int per long rest, or all your Int by lesser restoration.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I'm gonna break this up for ease of addressing the various things I disagree with...
Vahnyu wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kayal wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
"AaronOfBarbaria"<span> wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
mellored wrote:
A level 20, wizard could beat an ID with a dagger. So it can't be dangerous...
bears on the other hand....
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Right... so you are, as seem typical of you, arguing with me over semantics because encountering a creature and choosing to flee is technically not avoiding the creature. Cool beans.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Pompadour64 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
So are we saying an CR2 intellect devourer is not overpowered because a level 15 Fighter can run away from it? Is there any other monster that would force any 15th level character to run away? Any combination of monster and character at all?
Edit: Maybe not force, but scare the player enough for the saftey of his character that he chooses to flee.
LordTwig wrote:
Hey, are you guys twins....
I'll go ahead and chime in on the Intellect Devourer shenanigans.
If it ever comes up in one of my games, I'll just mimic the Strength Drain rules from a Shadow (MM pg. 269)...
"The target dies if this reduces its Strength to 0. Otherwise, the reduction lasts until the target finishes a short or long rest."
Easy peasy, AFAIC.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Is the Deep Gnome feat + Arcane Ward broken? Maybe it's because it's late and my reading comprehension is dulled, but there doesn't seem to be cap to the HP that can be added to the ward. If that is the case, nondetection can be used ad infinitum out of combat.
Edit: I guess this would be no different than an abjurer with 2 levels in warlock for Armor of Shadows, but that is a L1 spell versus L3 of nondetection.
durntaur wrote:
Regardless of the fact that a deep gnome wizard can now spam Arcane Ward without MC, let's say the feat doesn't exist: is my understanding correct, can an abjurer wizard MC-warlock spam Armor of Shadows out of combat to create infinite HP? If that's the case, it's absolutely broken.
durntaur wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Really I like 5E alot. I also loved 1E/2E/3E. I found I can easily remove the concentration mechanic and modify a few spells the way I liked them in previous editions. I generally like the damage output of spells, but other things I want to tweak. Works for me. Love the Rogue in this edition insanely.
Kayal wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote: