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

[Minigiant]

I think every edition taught a lesson on saving throws based on its failures in the matter.

1e: Saving throw Categories should be logical
2e: Saving throws should be easily calculated on the fly
3e: Characters shouldn't be bad at most saves
4e: The effects of failed "saves" should be significantly different from each other
5e: Saves should be "targeted" "equally"


Based on the issues of the past, future D&D should:

1. Remain with 6 saves. 3 saves is too few as it makes you automatically bad at 33.33% of saves if you are bad at one. And it makes targeting a bad save more difficult because now you have to carry six control spells in order to have the full range of targeting saves.
2. Saves should be targeted "equally" in frequency and power. AKA no Good saves and bad saves
   1. Meaning more Str, Int, and Cha saves in regular play
3. The calculation of saving throw bonus should be an easy formula so that if the bonus is changed within play it is easy to recalculate.
4. Monsters should get abilities that alter and increase their saving throw bonuses more often like evasion or saving through expertise.
5. The targeting of saving clothes throws should follow a sort of internal logic in which DMs can easily determine which saving throw to call for in a logical way that players can predict.
   1. For example you would make poison and necrotic damage spell to be Constitution saves so that if a situation where the players are being affected by a cold effect within the dungeon the players would predict via the cold that is very high likely that if something happens and they have to make a saving throw it is going to be constitution based and does the players with the highest Constitution should be the ones who do the dangerous tasks.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The targeting of saving clothes should follow a sort of internal logic

It's rare to see an adventurer proficient with a sewing kit, but then again I feel all that is taken into account with lifestyle expenditure.

 

[Minigiant]

It's rare to see an adventurer proficient with a sewing kit, but then again I feel all that is taken into account with lifestyle expenditure.

Well that's why DMs should force rolls to see if your clothes has holes or fall off.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the other problem

STR saving throws PHB spells
Arms of Hadar
Ensnaring Strike
Entangle
Thunderous Smite
Gust of Wind
Wind Wall
Control Water
Evard's Black Tentacles
Tsunami

INT saving throws PHB spells
Mind Sliver
Phantasmal Force
Synaptic Static
Befuddlement

CHA saving throws PHB spells (a lot of banishment and planar holding spells)
Bane
Animal Messenger
Calm Emotions
Zone of Truth
Magic Circle
Banishment
Banishing Smite
Dispel Evil and Good
Planar Binding
Seeming
Magic Jar
Divine Word
Forcecage

You see that there aren't many of these spells. And few of them are one monster lists. And by the way the saving throws work arranged on most monsters you can tell that the designers really didn't put as much effort in ensuring that monster were good at strength intelligence or Charisma saving throws.

So it is easy to target these weak saves. While most characters having a weak major saves.

 

[Remathilis]

Well that's why DMs should force rolls to see if your clothes has holes or fall off.

That seems like either a madcap romp using the BoEF or an actual rule in FATAL...

 

[Remathilis]

Here's the other problem

STR saving throws PHB spells
Arms of Hadar
Ensnaring Strike
Entangle
Thunderous Smite
Gust of Wind
Wind Wall
Control Water
Evard's Black Tentacles
Tsunami

INT saving throws PHB spells
Mind Sliver
Phantasmal Force
Synaptic Static
Befuddlement

CHA saving throws PHB spells (a lot of banishment and planar holding spells)
Bane
Animal Messenger
Calm Emotions
Zone of Truth
Magic Circle
Banishment
Banishing Smite
Dispel Evil and Good
Planar Binding
Seeming
Magic Jar
Divine Word
Forcecage

You see that there aren't many of these spells. And few of them are one monster lists. And by the way the saving throws work arranged on most monsters you can tell that the designers really didn't put as much effort in ensuring that monster were good at strength intelligence or Charisma saving throws.

So it is easy to target these weak saves. While most characters having a weak major saves.

While true, it's important to note that there are non-spell abilities like grapples or mind blasts of monsters that also target weak saves (just as there are non-magical effects that target strong saves). Just using spells isn't a clear indicator of how to balance saves.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think every edition taught a lesson on saving throws based on its failures in the matter.

1e: Saving throw Categories should be logical
2e: Saving throws should be easily calculated on the fly
3e: Characters shouldn't be bad at most saves
4e: The effects of failed "saves" should be significantly different from each other
5e: Saves should be "targeted" "equally"


Based on the issues of the past, future D&D should:

1. Remain with 6 saves. 3 saves is too few as it makes you automatically bad at 33.33% of saves if you are bad at one. And it makes targeting a bad save more difficult because now you have to carry six control spells in order to have the full range of targeting saves.
2. Saves should be targeted "equally" in frequency and power. AKA no Good saves and bad saves
   1. Meaning more Str, Int, and Cha saves in regular play
3. The calculation of saving throw bonus should be an easy formula so that if the bonus is changed within play it is easy to recalculate.
4. Monsters should get abilities that alter and increase their saving throw bonuses more often like evasion or saving through expertise.
5. The targeting of saving clothesthrows should follow a sort of internal logic in which DMs can easily determine which saving throw to call for in a logical way that players can predict.
   1. For example you would make poison and necrotic damage spell to be Constitution saves so that if a situation where the players are being affected by a cold effect within the dungeon the players would predict via the cold that is very high likely that if something happens and they have to make a saving throw it is going to be constitution based and does the players with the highest Constitution should be the ones who do the dangerous tasks.

I don't agree that they should stick with 6 saves. I think having so many is particularly a reason why it is so difficult to target them equally in frequency or power, there is too much to go around, and the thematic differentiation isn't really clear. And it's perfectly fine if a party has the ability to target every save well - that means it's not some build optimization strategy to target all saves, it means you can actually rely on that most parties can target the enemy's weakness. Now it's about tactical decisions and learning about your foe's weakness, stuff actually happening at the game table and not about time optimizing spend in the character builder.

And then you balance saves (or defenses) being targetable as assumption into your game and ensure that effects don't completely wreck your monsters. (Especailly since even a good saving throw can fail, as evidenced by all those 3E Fighters I had that died to Fortitutde Saving throw effects.).

 

[Minigiant]

While true, it's important to note that there are non-spell abilities like grapples or mind blasts of monsters that also target weak saves (just as there are non-magical effects that target strong saves). Just using spells isn't a clear indicator of how to balance saves.

But that also is rare.

Grapples are inferior attacks for monsters.

Few monsters have mind blasts. It's really just a few far realm stuff.

I don't agree that they should stick with 6 saves. I think having so many is particularly a reason why it is so difficult to target them equally in frequency or power, there is too much to go around, and the thematic differentiation isn't really clear. And it's perfectly fine if a party has the ability to target every save well - that means it's not some build optimization strategy to target all saves, it means you can actually rely on that most parties can target the enemy's weakness. Now it's about tactical decisions and learning about your foe's weakness, stuff actually happening at the game table and not about time optimizing spend in the character builder.

And then you balance saves (or defenses) being targetable as assumption into your game and ensure that effects don't completely wreck your monsters. (Especailly since even a good saving throw can fail, as evidenced by all those 3E Fighters I had that died to Fortitutde Saving throw effects.).

But like I said. If you go back to Fort/Ref/Will you go back to PCs and monsters being weak in 33% or 66% of saves. And that's with like you said, people still getting murked on their good save.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't agree that they should stick with 6 saves. I think having so many is particularly a reason why it is so difficult to target them equally in frequency or power, there is too much to go around, and the thematic differentiation isn't really clear. And it's perfectly fine if a party has the ability to target every save well - that means it's not some build optimization strategy to target all saves, it means you can actually rely on that most parties can target the enemy's weakness. Now it's about tactical decisions and learning about your foe's weakness, stuff actually happening at the game table and not about time optimizing spend in the character builder.

And then you balance saves (or defenses) being targetable as assumption into your game and ensure that effects don't completely wreck your monsters. (Especailly since even a good saving throw can fail, as evidenced by all those 3E Fighters I had that died to Fortitutde Saving throw effects.).

i wonder if you could at least get them down to four and that'd still offer a range of targets but better balance on targeting frequency, STR/CON, DEX, and then INT/WIS, CHA or INT, WIS/CHA, i don't know which way of the two would be a better split, but breaking down into rough conceptual categories of toughness, agility, smarts and willpower.

 

[tetrasodium]

But like I said. If you go back to Fort/Ref/Will you go back to PCs and monsters being weak in 33% or 66% of saves. And that's with like you said, people still getting murked on their good save.

No he's right. 3 saves with base good iffy awful before gear and possible feats was a far better dynamic, especially when paired with the limitations and opportunity costs of vancian casting.

It was ok that most monsters were weak against something. Special monsters also had SR & SR itself provided positive incentive for players to choose the less save or lose focused spells that tended to rely more on reciprocity across the party to really shine