Is this right? I don't remember most 2e combats lasting very long either.
3e I remember being longer.
D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition
- Thread starter THEMNGMNT
- Start date
3e I remember being longer.
Having to prepare spells slot by slot was orders of magnitude better for both the health of gameplay as well as encouraging players to plan to work together then follow through with doing so in service of competence porn teamwork. That applied to both casters and noncasters because both depended on each other to have their back with follow through on a plan and willingly engage in good faith communication rather than the way 5e tends to result in players who don't really care about working together soloing near each other while expecting their fellow party members to figure it out on the go or be just as big of an antisocial spotlight hog as they are.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The 2e fights I remember were longer, but not anything like 3e, some of which went more than one 4 hour session.
I almost want to make vancian for 5e again and incentivize it somehow ... But I feel like any reasonable incentives would never be strong enough to make it worth taking over the existing system.
There must be existing work others have done in that line for 5e homebrew. But again I can't imagine anyone would use it without it being massively overpowered.
I agree to a point, they are easier to land but they were not really hail marys in AD&D.
I think an Ancient Gold Dragon in AD&D saves on a 10 against a spell, an 8 if it is a polymproph spell. So cast it 3 turns in a row and you probably got him and if you do land it the fight is over.
Preparing spells slot by slot had its pluses and minuses. At low level it was a lot worse but at high level you are memorizing like 30 different spells a day.
... If you entirely skip its 70% magic resistance, sure
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Legend
... If you entirely skip its 70% magic resistance, sure
How many HD does a ancient GD have in 2E?
In 1st ed AD&D dragons don't have magic resistance.... If you entirely skip its 70% magic resistance, sure
But they do have special saving throws (MM, p 31):
When a dragon attains 5 or more hit points per die, its saving throw is calculated by dividing its total hit points by 4, thus giving a higher number of hit dice than it actually has. This reflects the magic resistance and general toughness of this creature. Conversely, even a very young dragon gains the benefit of the actual number of its hit dice, even though the hit point/die are but 1 each, for determining scores required. This reflects the same nature of dragonkind, i.e. magic resistance and toughness.
So an ancient dragon, which has 8 hp per die, has saving throws based on HD equal to twice its actual HD. For a gold dragon, those actual HD are 10 to 12 (depending on size) and so saving throws are at HD 20 to 24.
As per page 79 of the DMG,
Most monsters save as fighters, except:
1. Those with abilities of other character classes gain the benefit of the most favorable saving throw score, i.e. be it cleric or magic-user or thief.
1. Those with abilities of other character classes gain the benefit of the most favorable saving throw score, i.e. be it cleric or magic-user or thief.
So an ancient gold dragon has the best saves of a fighter or MU of level 20 to 24 (depending on size). That's 3/4/5/4/6 at level 20, and 3/4/3/4/4 above that.
Hold Monster targeted at a single creature gives a -3 on the saving throw, so that is a 7 to save. The chance of making 3 such saves in a row is a touch over 1 in 3.
Actually don't throw +1/2 out the window.
Your ATTACK roll is always 3+1/2 of your level. It ignores your attribute. And bonuses to ATTACK from feats and items are capped at +1; any bonus is +1, further bonuses is ignored. (weapon proficiency bonuses are +2/+3 as usual).
I call this "presumed competence"; any power you have, you are presumed competent at, and we remove the requirement to have a magic weapon to hit things. "To hit chance" is too important to leave to chance.
You can do something similar with non-AC defences, reducing the importance of items, or just leave them as-is.
Damage modifiers still use your attribute, as do secondary effects.
I also tweak powers like twin strike (so dex/str does something).
You can go further and tweak AC and NAD calculations, or just strip the +1/2 level bonus. I like making NADs be "max score of the two attributes, plus modifier of the other" however. For AC, giving characters a baseline defence of 10+1/2 level, then adding based on armor/shield, and making heavy/light armor have different special mechanics (ie, heavy armor gives you resist all, light/no armor gives you a reaction "use reflex instead of AC against an attack"). Enhacement bonuses on heavy armor can add to resist all and fortitude, and on light armor give you (bonus to reflex).
Neck slot enhancement bonuses can add to saving throws instead of defences (even at 1/2 standard bonus this is a really solid boost).
But yes, making the modifiers be less steep can flatten the game a lot. It does make the XP calculations a bit off, but they where already; 4e runs into the problem that damage per action and HP per foe is pretty flat once you hit paragon tier (ignoring elite and solo monsters). At low levels, a higher level monster both gains ATK/DEF and a significant boost to HP and DPR, which makes the threat feel meatier; at higher levels, higher level foes are just "they always hit" and "you never hit", and unless they are solo/elite their damage isn't all that much more.
Fixing that is a bigger problem than just tweaking ATK/DEF.
I always felt control spells were unfun. Either they worked and trivialized an encounter or failed. Now with Magic Resistance and high saves monsters get out of most spells. So what do the designers do? Create Intelligence saves and uncommon damage types like psychic. This needs to stop. Remove energy resistance and immunity. Reduce save values and give control spells a limited time duration. Say 3 rounds with no save per round to end the effect earlier.
