D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition

[Mort]

I don't think the level of reward and punishment that resulted was intended.

They kinda.. overdid... it.. to the point it became very obvious and hurt the game

Intended or not, it was there from the get go.

From the very beginning there were great options and trap options, and both were presented in the exact same way

 

[Minigiant]

Intended or not, it was there from the get go.

From the very beginning there were great options and trap options, and both were presented in the exact same way

Sure.

But my point was that if you actually used any of the great options, you destroyed monsters deemed appropriate.

3e was balanced around you taking the traps options.

5e wasnt as bad but it was balanced around you playing a meh version of a walking stereotype. If you actually tried to build good PCs and play smart, 5e is sooo easy. Hence the reputation.

 

[MichaelSomething]

wait, so you do want them to ruin the game in 5e?

They don't ruin the game, they provide the D&D feeling that is so vital. If a player saved their control spell until the super dangerous monster showed up, then they deserve the chance to shut it down in one action. If a DM isn't wearing down a party through attrition, then they deserve to have their boss monster vaporized in the first round.

 

[Mort]

Sure.

But my point was that if you actually used any of the great options, you destroyed monsters deemed appropriate.

3e was balanced around you taking the traps options.

Kind of, If martials took the trap options they were in trouble. There were some trap options for casters, but not nearly as bad and being a full caster compensated for a lot.

5e wasnt as bad but it was balanced around you playing a meh version of a walking stereotype. If you actually tried to build good PCs and play smart, 5e is sooo easy. Hence the reputation.

I'm not sure this centers so much around builds as around the fact that 1) Most monsters don't actually hit all that hard (most) and 2) PCs don't stay down, because there are no RAW penalties for bouncing up from 0, it's too easy to just spring back up (with the very small exception of an early level big critical. Ironically, the first hit of my very first 5e session involved me critting the mage for max damage with a heavy crossbow. Full to dead in 1 shot, set an interesting tone for the rest of the time!)

 

[Not a Decepticon]

3E that was designed for new players and players who don't seriously optimize.

Citation needed

This is why so many of the players handbook feats and options were so bad for optimization.

Putting "trap" options into the book, that punish the player who picks it, is inherently rewarding system mastery to recognize the trap options, which is THE OPPOSITE of designing for new players and bad players.

It's like the story of the 2014 Champion fighter (new trap) and the 2024 Champion fighter (top tier DPS monster)

If they put in a trap build option, then it was not a new player friendly design.

All the podcasts, articles, videos, and interviews by Mearls and later Crawford. They say it all the time.

Would be easy to link them then, with timestamps, right?

5e was designed to go back to the traditional feel of D&D but have room for all these optional opt in modules and variants for different fandoms who wanted different feels.

You changed what you have said before. In previous posts you have said that 5e was designed with the idea that it will be exclusively 3rd party publishers who will provide these modules and variants, which is a different argument from the one you make now altogether.

I can assure you that there were new players who came to 3e who had been reluctant to play earlier editions.

And that does not contradict that the game was not designed for new players.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

5e wasnt as bad but it was balanced around you playing a meh version of a walking stereotype. If you actually tried to build good PCs and play smart, 5e is sooo easy. Hence the reputation.

Maybe you just cannot design good adventures and encounters in this system and that's why you think it's too easy?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

But my point was that if you actually used any of the great options, you destroyed monsters deemed appropriate.

3e was balanced around you taking the traps options.

That is decesively untrue and the fact Muscle Wizard and Pun Pun exist, who both could easily attain infinite attributes, proves it.

 

[Zardnaar]

That is decesively untrue and the fact Muscle Wizard and Pun Pun exist, who both could easily attain infinite attributes, proves it.

Pun Pubs a theory craft builds. Doesn't really exist as it also required dubious rules layering.

Muscle wizard the spelldancer?

 

[Alzrius]

3e was balanced around you taking the traps options.

No, it wasn't. I'll refer you to this article about the "ivory tower design" of 3E.

 

[Xeviat]

Fix was in 4E and pre 3E.

Scaling defenses.

How in the 9 hells of Baator did they miss that one?

I generally like what Mike writes about but sheesh.

Probably cant remove them because tradition but have saves scale faster than DCs.

Make spellcasters debuff to land them or revert to direct damage or buffing instead.

Depends on a few things. Vs hold monster
2E T-Rex. Saves 75% of the time.
5E Trex. Fails 75% of the time.

Approximately.

Tradition? 3E was the odd one out. When they designed 5E.

It's funny. I've had a long standing 5E house rule that has really helped out.

1) All DCs are increased by +2 (formula is 10 + prof + mod)
2) All characters and creatures get proficiency in all saves.

Then, saves scale with DCs (though some scale slower due to ability score scaling).

I was so surprised that this wasn't how it was in core.