D&D (2024) PHB 2024 Is Hilariously Broken. Most OP of All Time?

[mellored]

it is a limited resource, you maximally cast that about as often in a day as your fighter attacks in a round (yes, it is a cantrip now, it wasn’t on day 1)

And how long did it take for a wizard to be able to have enough slots to cast every turn?


IMO, one of the biggest inherent issue is that casters keep all their lower level slots.

Give them a flat 10 slots per day, scaling their level similar to a Warlock (wish uses 7 slots), that would be much better.

 

[mellored]

Im talking from a DM perspective and keeping track of various monsters and their different conditions and HPs. DMing is already hard enough without adding more to do. The Fighter and Wizard can keep track of their own stuff.

Cleave, Graze, Vex, and Nick are all player side.
Push doesn't add anything new to track.
And you can let the player track and roll the extra d20 for Sap.
That just leaves slow and topple.

Topple is a bit annoying to run.
Slow is fine.

Because it was one source and not 3.

MORE is not always BETTER.

We don't need more ways to stand still and deal / receive damage.

If you want to change something to make it easier on the DM, start by removing Topple, then all the debuff spells, then all the zone spells, then slow.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm also rather... alarmed by the nick weapon mastery and how it's being interpreted. I thought that using a nick weapon meant that your bonus action didn't have to be used for the off-hand attack, meaning you could attack twice at low level and still have other things to do with your bonus action. Feels like it makes the fighting style finally balanced!
Instead, you can get two extra attacks if you do use your bonus action. That seems... not right.

If people are saying that they are wrong. There is the dual wielder feat that gives back a bonus action attack. Which allows 4 attacks at level 5 with nick and extra attack.

 

[FrogReaver]

3.0 is the most broken edition of all time but it required a lot of non core stuff to do it. 3.5 PHB mostly theoretically higher level stuff and the Druid. 4E had that kill Orcus thing with a Ranger but was mostly theoretical.

So far a few of us have found the following things that seem OP. Even worse they're very self contained and are available fairly early on.

1. Warcaster feat. Reaction casting to buff allies.

Not really that strong. There’s rarely a sequence where this will be really good.

2. Grappler feat
Lots of potential builds mostly abusing spike growth and spirit guardians. Basic idea drag opponents through spike growth edge or run around with a cleric and have multiple characters do it.

As has been pointed out, dragging/carrying have specific rules for how much you can carry/drag. For a medium creature that’s 15*str.

Combine that with your gear weight and enemy with gear weight and there’s not going to be many creatures you can drag more than 5ft.

3. Conjure Minor Elemental. Not 100% sure it's fine at 7 but from 9+ there's some crazy numbers.

Agreed. Especially since it’s easy enough to get 4 attacks now.

4. Some sort of Monk weapon mastery abuse with daggers and unarmed strikes. Still work in progress. Looks like more damage than the -5/+10 feats without the -5 part.

That’s interesting because monk can surpass most dual wielders with flurry of blows 2 attacks. Single level fighter dip early looks nasty. Can make 3 attacks at level 2. At level 3 with flurry can make 4.

 

[nyvinter]

If people are saying that they are wrong. There is the dual wielder feat that gives back a bonus action attack. Which allows 4 attacks at level 5 with nick and extra attack.

It doesn't give the bonus action attack back, it just says the bonus attack can be made with a weapon that isn't two-handed.

For all intents and purposes, you still only have one bonus action, it's just that the authors suck at describing things in natural language so they didn't bother to include "you can't do a third attack as your bonus action with nick." Even though they should have.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't give the bonus action attack back, it just says the bonus attack can be made with a weapon that isn't two-handed.

Aka ‘getting the bonus action attack back.

For all intents and purposes, you still only have one bonus action, it's just that the authors suck at describing things in natural language so they didn't bother to include "you can't do a third attack as your bonus action with nick." Even though they should have.

Nick says: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the attack action instead of as a bonus action.

The Light property says: when you take the attack action on your turn and attack with a light weapon, can make one extra attack as a bonus action later on the same turn…

The rules are perfectly clear in this instance. Light property gives one extra attack as a bonus action, nick removed the bonus action requirement. No multiple attacks coming from light property/nick. Just one. People just don’t read the RAW in full.

 

[mamba]

And how long did it take for a wizard to be able to have enough slots to cast every turn?


IMO, one of the biggest inherent issue is that casters keep all their lower level slots.

they keep them because they have better options

Even so, the fighter with multiple attacks per round will create more status effects to track

 

[Xetheral]

3. Result-oriented readings. 5e is written in "natural language," but also uses "specific terms," which somehow combines the worst of both worlds. You read the rules naturally, but also pay attention to sometimes minute differences in specific word choices ... usually involving various adjectives combined with "attack." Anyway, a lot of the exploits are people straining to read the rules in ways that most tables would reject.

This early in the introduction of the 2024 rules, I think some (unknown) portion of the discussion of edge cases is motivated not by players trying to achieve a specific result, but is instead motivated by a desire to evaluate/review the 2024 rules. That can either be to inform a practical decision on whether or not to adopt the new rules, or else just a methodical part of deciding whether or not one thinks the 2024 rules are an improvement over the 2014 rules. In other words, some of the current discussion of edges cases I think is motivated by attempts to determine the merit of the 2024 rules, not to argue about what is/isn't/should/shouldn't be possible or attempted in actual play. (Conceptually, it's similar to testing a proposed new model at the extremes to evaluate robustness.)

And I think WotC's decision to present the 2024 rules as an upgrade of the 2014 rules understandably increases the portion of the edge case discussion that is focused on evaluating the merit of the 2024 rules, rather than optimizing actual play choices. Whether or not the apparent number of issues in the 2024 rules compares favorably or unfavorably with the 2014 rules when released in 2014, presenting something new as an upgrade to a mature system unavoidably invites comparison of the 2024 rules to the 2014 rules as played in 2024. I've got the 2014 rules with 10 years of my accumulated house rules and rulings to address their edge cases, whereas every new edge case in 2024 would need to be addressed. When deciding whether to adopt the 2024 rules for my table or whether I think they are in fact an upgrade to the 2014 rules, it makes practical sense to compare what I already have to the new option that is on offer.

As the 2024 rules themselves mature (assuming they see widespread adoption, anyway), I would expect the discussion of edge cases to shift away from questions of merit and more towards questions of practice, to which concerns regarding results-oriented reading would be more pertinent.

 

[Ashrym]

Nick also states "You can make this extra attack only once per turn."

In the monk example, unarmed strike as a bonus action is something that's available regardless of what action the monk took. Nick as an attack that doesn't need a bonus action doesn't change that because that bonus action has nothing to do with the Nick mastery.

But for a monk to do this they need to either splash another class or spend a feat. They don't get that mastery without that cost.

That falls under the synergy category. It's not an exploit or some weird interpretation of the rules where monks aren't supposed to have that unarmed strike option as a bonus action. It doesn't seem OP either. It's a d6 damage bonus reliant on accuracy that scales up to a d12 damage bonus reliant on accuracy from that cost.

 

[Stormonu]

If people are saying that they are wrong. There is the dual wielder feat that gives back a bonus action attack. Which allows 4 attacks at level 5 with nick and extra attack.

... and then the Wizard drops a fireball at level 5 that catches twice that many people and deals damage even if they save...

Broken is such a relative thing.

(Not aiming this at you FrogReaver, just comparatively, martial melee attacks tend to pale what's being done with spells).