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

[Minigiant]

To your point, a given creature/class could be run in different roles. Its totally plausible for a cleric to be a controller, a striker or a defender all based on the spells prepared

Why they didn't have little text block with different spell lists under caster monsters is beyond me.

Or different weapon/armor set ups on warrior weapon users.

 

[Zardnaar]

And the martial maneuvers a la 3.5e Tome of Battle
Though I don't imagine they dropped Fireball's damage to 8d6 because it's OP, rather that it makes it a flat-out better choice than similar aoe spells (lightning bolt).
Just guessing there.

Tome of Battle mention doesn't make it any more appealing lol.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The other part of 4E I wish had survived was more of the Ritual Casting. 5.5 really hates Ritual Casting, but it should have been made more prominant, like a background feat, IMO. The idea of the fighter having Unseen Servants clean their armor, the rogue learning Identify so they didnt need to involve a wizard with their loot, the Barbarian able to summon a ghost horse, all that just felt more like what d&d should be. Fewer people with high power magic, more with things that are almost useless in combat.

Who needs rituals when you got circle casting??

D&D 5E (2024) Thread 'Circle Casting is gonna break a lot of games'

Monday at 7:28 PM

Going down the list of the new Circle Casting options in Heroes of Faerun and boy, is it going to have an effect. The below video explains each in detail. For example, anyone with the spellcasting or pact trait can be a secondary spell caster. That means a level 1 caster dip, magic initiate feat, or other minor thing that gives a spellcasting ability means you can help augment other casters. One of the things you can do is share concentration.

So level 9 wizard casts a concentration spell with a level 8 fighter/1 wizard. The f/w takes on the concentration aspect, allowing the spell to...

• Sacrosanct
• Replies: 255
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

 

[Lanefan]

Scry and fry(like codzilla) was more of a punpun adjacent whiteroom thing than something to see in the wild beyond perhaps a one off twist

I've seen scry-and-fry happen numerous times in 1e, never mind 3e where it was far easier to pull off.

It's a thing, IME.

 

[Minigiant]

Scry and fry is not really the issue.

The issue is that Power attackers, Buffed CoDs, and Control casters wrecked the poorly made monsters of 3e. And rejiggering monsters in 3e was a chore.

5e is less harsh if you built decent PCs. But you had more options with fewer books to wreck monsters.

 

[Horwath]

And the martial maneuvers a la 3.5e Tome of Battle
Though I don't imagine they dropped Fireball's damage to 8d6 because it's OP, rather that it makes it a flat-out better choice than similar aoe spells (lightning bolt).
Just guessing there.

then you buff up rest of damage spells and not make only decent damage spell waste of a 3rd level spell slot.
I love A5E, but that change is ignored from the start, even houseruled for scaling in opposite direction.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Sure. But when someone does speak that way, one should think that the information is very easy to find.

Most of the written information was old.
But Mearls talks about it in like every interview and con panel.

I'd be a massive jerk to link hour long videos and podcasts. But it would take me days to listen to them and get timestamps.



Hey if someone goes on and on about a game feature to the point that other game designers on the outside also parrot it, then doesn't produce, but opens up the means for others to make the thing you hyped up...

well...

1+1+1=3

Easy to make a strong hunch.

I mean ask the 4E fans about the hyped 4e tactical features for 5e. Open that can I worms.

A5E is practically built off the hype never put to paper by WOTC for 5e.

Again, you are making assumptions of intent with no evidence of one. Yes, let's assume that they promised things that did not materialize. Do you have any proof that they intended to just outsource material to 3rd party when they were releasing the game? No, it's just an assumption based on coincidences. We do not know how things transpired, who and why made decisions. And I find it insulting to just assume that developers worked with intent to leave the game for other creators from other companeis to finish, you may as well call them lazy at this point.

And I think by Occam's Razor we can stop with some conspiracies about "mysterious underhanded reasons" WotC opened 5e with OGL. There is a very simple reason. 5e was going back on unpopular changes made by 4e and not being open to 3rd party publishing was one of them. It's that simple.

 

[Minigiant]

Again, you are making assumptions of intent with no evidence of one. Yes, let's assume that they promised things that did not materialize. Do you have any proof that they intended to just outsource material to 3rd party when they were releasing the game? No, it's just an assumption based on coincidences. We do not know how things transpired, who and why made decisions. And I find it insulting to just assume that developers worked with intent to leave the game for other creators from other companeis to finish, you may as well call them lazy at this point.

And I think by Occam's Razor we can stop with some conspiracies about "mysterious underhanded reasons" WotC opened 5e with OGL. There is a very simple reason. 5e was going back on unpopular changes made by 4e and not being open to 3rd party publishing was one of them. It's that simple.

Now to switch it up a bit.

At a certain point if you are arguing so hard against my theory then you have to eventually come up with a competing theory.

I proposed a theory
I gave a timeline
I offered proof and evidence towards my theory and timeline.

Now the onus is now on you in order to argue back to provide your own theory and prove it

 

[Minigiant]

then you buff up rest of damage spells and not make only decent damage spell waste of a 3rd level spell slot.
I love A5E, but that change is ignored from the start, even houseruled for scaling in opposite direction.

Yeah.

At Gamehole Con, Mearls stated that damage spells were too weak.

They needed to boost spells up to the level of Fireball or maybe even higher.

It's even worse on a monster side where as spells themselves deal way too little damage when aimed at PCS. You tap out on level 9 damage spells like at mid CR.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Now to switch it up a bit.

At a certain point if you are arguing so hard against my theory then you have to eventually come up with a competing theory.

I proposed a theory
I gave a timeline
I offered proof and evidence towards my theory and timeline.

Now the onus is now on you in order to argue back to provide your own theory and prove it

I am starting to think you reply to my posts without reading them.