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

[FrogReaver]

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.

Are you trying to make the problem worse?

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Ive considered it as well and even started spit balling it at one point but 5e really went out of its way to make it hard for someone to make that kind of change without going past major homebrew into full on fantasy heartbreaker. For all of the empty lip service that Crawford gave us over the last decade about how this or that aspect of 5e was designed to make it easier to homebrew and make changes it's remarkably inflexible and difficult to make meaningful changes that impact wargamer side of wargamer/theater kid spread.

It almost feels like something like that would probably take a total rewrite of everything the spells chapter plus a reconsideration for the role of cantrips and rebuilding a few classes that wind up with their class+subclass spaghetti code broken by the results of doing one or both.

 

[nevin]

Interesting take.

Of course, there are plenty of control spells (5e sleep, Spike growth, wall of Force etc.) that don't have a save, which is what makes them particularly good - they just work. Those are the ones I see used particularly well.

If I recall correctly, in prior editions (2e and before) magic resistance was much more definitive. If it kicked in, the monster just ignored the spell entirely, such as walking right through a wall of Force. So that part certainly does track.

to be fair that was almost necessary in 1e as wall of force was impenetrable. In 1e there were some spells that only

I think the central premise as that it's easier to land control spells in 5e AND it gets easier as you level.

Whereas in AD&D, you chance of landing spells for worse as you leveled, your ability to boost that was severely limited, you had to prepare them to slots, and bosses tended to be higher HD for better saves. So spells vs "bosses" were hail maries if they weren't immune.

Not everything you fought was your level in AD&D. Mages were great at high levels ,with support to protect them, for dealing with the unruly masses that tended to come with the high level monsters. Also ome spells in AD&D like stoneskin lasted a lot longer and the big bad that saved so much better had a lot less hit points. A couple of 10 level fireballs with below Average damage could kill a high level monster. I believe a Wyrm White Dragon was 12hd.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think the Control spells are ruining the game, primarily because I don't think most players focus on them as much as they could to have that sort of impact on the game.

Yes, it's technically more optimal if you crunch the numbers involved with the impact on combat in, for example, the use of Hypnotic Pattern a large group of foes and then focus fire on just one at a time (though smart foes will just slap their allies awake from it).

But realistically, a lot more players just find it more fun to Fireball that same group. The Fireball is less optimal if you run the numbers as a generalization for an average group, but a lot more fun to roll a bunch of dice and damage a lot of creatures.

And I think, at most tables, the Control spells just are not used as often as you'd think from their potential impact on the battles.

 

[NotAYakk]

to be fair that was almost necessary in 1e as wall of force was impenetrable. In 1e there were some spells that only

Not everything you fought was your level in AD&D. Mages were great at high levels ,with support to protect them, for dealing with the unruly masses that tended to come with the high level monsters. Also ome spells in AD&D like stoneskin lasted a lot longer and the big bad that saved so much better had a lot less hit points. A couple of 10 level fireballs with below Average damage could kill a high level monster. I believe a Wyrm White Dragon was 12hd.

Yes; against high level monsters you wanted a wide selection of damage types (to avoid immune) and save-for-half damage spells.

A 25% save rate vs 90% save rate with a "save or suck" spell is 7.5x better/worse.
The same save rates with "save for half damage" is 1.6x better/worse.

So "fireball" and the like where better against bosses quite often. Being immune to charm, paralysis, etc (the classic "you lose") was about as likely as being immune to fire damage, with lower level effects more likely to run into immunity. Petrification immunity would be less rare than Paralysis immunity, and immunity to Death Magic even rarer, but Hold Monster would be a lower level spell than Petrification, and Power Word: Kill spell would be even higher level.

Then you could throw your almost-always half-damage spells at it and whittle it down with the rest of the party, ideally with the fighter-types keeping it distracted instead of gambling on low-chance-to-connect instant-win spells.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think the Control spells are ruining the game, primarily because I don't think most players focus on them as much as they could to have that sort of impact on the game.

Yes, it's technically more optimal if you crunch the numbers involved with the impact on combat in, for example, the use of Hypnotic Pattern a large group of foes and then focus fire on just one at a time (though smart foes will just slap their allies awake from it).

But realistically, a lot more players just find it more fun to Fireball that same group. The Fireball is less optimal if you run the numbers as a generalization for an average group, but a lot more fun to roll a bunch of dice and damage a lot of creatures.

And I think, at most tables, the Control spells just are not used as often as you'd think from their potential impact on the battles.

My viewpoint of Fireball being kinda crap is a bit more common elsewhere than I thought.

Newbies use it because its fun.

ENworlds full of people who dont actually play, reach the high levels or DM.

People aren't using it but tashas mindwhip on a Sorcerer is almost the only spell you need.

A bad wisdom save means the creature isn't worth its CR. +6 with advantage isnt that great later on. A lot of creatures dont have +6 with advantage.

Proper defenses are lacking on most creatures below CR 20. They need way better saves, greater spell resistance or immunity to paralysis, stun.

Force and radiant damage essentially has no resistances or immunity. Unless you're fighting angels for Radiance.

The biggest offenders.

Tasha's Laughter, command
Hold person
Slow, hypnotic pattern, fear
Hold monster

Tasha's Mindwhip would be another contender if people bothered using it. Throw in a Sorcerer with Twin and heighten spell to make it worse.

You still need to keep damage up though. Spellcasters kinda suck at that outside very narrow builds level 10+.

 

[Mistwell]

My viewpoint of Fireball being kinda crap is a bit more common elsewhere than I thought.

Newbies use it because its fun.

I think everyone including very experienced players have fun with fireball and other direct damage spells even when they know it's not optimal. Optimal play isn't necessarily fun play, for most players regardless of experience.

ENworlds full of people who dont actually play, reach the high levels or DM.

I think people here have a lot of experience playing on average. Regardless, I'm not sure what that really has to do with the topic. If you agree with me that sometimes just doing damage is more fun than control spells, even if you're very experienced at the game, then it's irrelevant how experienced people are on ENWorld for this particular topic.

People aren't using it butvtashas mindwhip on a Sorcerer is almost the only spell you need.

But how boring that would be. You're basically saying a Sorcerer should just push a button every combat. Even the most boring melee build is more interesting in variation of options than that. If there is such a thing as optimizing for fun, that surely isn't optimal.

A bad wisdom save means the creature isn't worth its CR. +6 with advantage isnt that great later on. A lot of creatures dont have +6 with advantage.

Proper defenses are lacking on mot creatures below CR 20. They need way better saves, greater spell resistance or immunity to paralysis, stun.

You're basically saying creatures are not built in particular to defend well against some very specific optimal builds. I'm fine with that. I don't think you can build creatures to be good against optimal builds and average builds at the same time, and if you need to choose one to design for, I'd prefer it be the average build.

When dealing with an optimized party which was built to exploit the weaknesses of general monster construction, you need a DM who can optimize the foes. And a beauty of D&D is if you're dealing with players that experienced with tweaking out their PCs, then you're also likely dealing with a DM just as experienced with tweaking out their NPCs/challenges.

Force and radiant damage essentially has no resistances or immunity. Unless youre fighting angels for Radiance.

The biggest offenders.

Tasha's Laughter, command
Hold person
Slow, hypnotic pattern, fear
Hold monster

Tasha's Mindwhip would be another contender if people bothered using it. Throw in a Sorcerer with Twin and heighten spell to make it worse.

You still need to keep damage up though. Spellcasters kinda suck at that outside very narrow builds level 10+.

Agreed as a generalization spellcasters are not good at direct damage, particularly single target direct damage. Which is again functioning as intended. Though of course there are exceptions, like some Clerics and Druids and at least one Bard.

Barbarians up to 10th level are good at dealing direct damage without much optimization, particularly single target damage. Fighters above 10th level are good at that too without much optimization. Some other melee classes could use a bit of optimization to do it decently, such as Rogues (using true strike), Monks (very subclass dependant), and Paladins (using smite). Rangers can be, though their even more difficult to get there without some optimization.

To me, this is all pretty well balanced. It doesn't do well under high level optimization without a DM also able to optimize. But, that seems to be a decent way to build a game too.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think everyone including very experienced players have fun with fireball and other direct damage spells even when they know it's not optimal. Optimal play isn't necessarily fun play, for most players regardless of experience.



I think people here have a lot of experience playing on average. Regardless, I'm not sure what that really has to do with the topic. If you agree with me that sometimes just doing damage is more fun than control spells, even if you're very experienced at the game, then it's irrelevant how experienced people are on ENWorld for this particular topic.



But how boring that would be. You're basically saying a Sorcerer should just push a button every combat. Even the most boring melee build is more interesting in variation of options than that. If there is such a thing as optimizing for fun, that surely isn't optimal.



You're basically saying creatures are not built in particular to defend well against some very specific optimal builds. I'm fine with that. I don't think you can build creatures to be good against optimal builds and average builds at the same time, and if you need to choose one to design for, I'd prefer it be the average build.

When dealing with an optimized party which was built to exploit the weaknesses of general monster construction, you need a DM who can optimize the foes. And a beauty of D&D is if you're dealing with players that experienced with tweaking out their PCs, then you're also likely dealing with a DM just as experienced with tweaking out their NPCs/challenges.


Agreed as a generalization spellcasters are not good at direct damage, particularly single target direct damage. Which is again functioning as intended. Though of course there are exceptions, like some Clerics and Druids and at least one Bard.

Barbarians up to 10th level are good at dealing direct damage without much optimization, particularly single target damage. Fighters above 10th level are good at that too without much optimization. Some other melee classes could use a bit of optimization to do it decently, such as Rogues (using true strike), Monks (very subclass dependant), and Paladins (using smite). Rangers can be, though their even more difficult to get there without some optimization.

To me, this is all pretty well balanced. It doesn't do well under high level optimization without a DM also able to optimize. But, that seems to be a decent way to build a game too.

Its not 1 particular build. Its any spellcaster using spells they probably would be using anyway. Tashas mindwhip for example would be a specific if boring build. You can use that one spell to naughty word down huge chunks of the MM. Even with "bad" wisdom saves (+1-+6 being "bad") behind the screen I noticed how much worse most creatures intelligence saves were.

See previous statements about Greater Magic Resistance taking care of all of these spells. Sould probably be added to CR 20+ critters and a lot of CR 10+ ones if they are a boss fight. Had a CR 19 Balor get pwned by a banishment spell once it ran out of legendary saves (spam command at it).

Uncommon +1 DC items can be crafted reasonably quickly as well now. My PCs didn't stack them but DCs were 1-2 points higher than theory craft. I think you may be able to get +6-+9 on your spell DC but that is more theory craft.

You're essentially dismissing it because you're not seeing it. Its almost as bad as 3.5 where you have DC 30 or whatever. Its not quite that bad but its not hard to have things fail saves 75-95% of the time.

Spellcasters and outsiders usually have better saves but not by much. And almost everything casts spells in 5.5 now or can do if they want it bad enough. Throwing a hold monster spell or twinning it doesn't require an exotic build or theory craft.

 

[Distracted DM]

ENworlds full of people who dont actually play, reach the high levels or DM.

And some of us run 3-6 games/week

Tasha's Mind Whip, though.. that was one of the things that made me stop allowing every 1pp in without checking it first. It trivialized a bunch of tier 3 encounters in late-game Night Below, because 5e monsters weren't designed with INT-targeting features existing in mind; few will have any chance against TMW. And those poor purple worms...

 

[Zardnaar]

And some of us run 3-6 games/week

Tasha's Mind Whip, though.. that was one of the things that made me stop allowing every 1pp in without checking it first. It trivialized a bunch of tier 3 encounters in late-game Night Below, because 5e monsters weren't designed with INT-targeting features existing in mind; few will have any chance against TMW. And those poor purple worms...

With -1 wisdom saves Purple Worms have a lot more to worry about. CR 15 my ass.