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

[tetrasodium]

Though, I'm a little skeptical of the idea that DMs these days tend to focus on specific encounters. There might be a bit of design leading play here, where a DM might want something with a bigger scope, but the game's design clearly leans into encounters, so the DM does, too. There's not much ink spilt in the core books about how to make an interesting and balanced dungeon, or how to use game systems to branch and fork your narrative and challenge your party with a story-based loss that has some teeth but isn't a fun-stopper. There's a lot about how to make an interesting and balanced encounter, though. Complaints about "grind" feel like complaints about an encounter focus to me. About stopping the rest of the game to engage with the combat loop that's not super engaging to you for an hour.

This 100%! I would love for the focus to go back to the dungeon as a whole vrs individual encounters but PCs have too many exception based abilities with too many easily recovered charges. Even if I were to somehow force a megadungeon to be cared about over the individual encounters it really doesn't matter until the last fight 2-3 sessions from now. Gone is the old suspense & existential dread of "ooh.. I have this dwindling pool of resources and need to be at least as careful as my fellow party members to use them effectively so we can make it to the end" because PCs just don't fit anywhere near a box capable of wearing those themes in any meaningful fashion that would allow me to run a session where they are the focus

 

[Steampunkette]

I know "tradition" is a popular scapegoat 'round these parts, but honestly it's just differing priorities.

While nuking traditional disabling effects would certainly tighten up the combat loop, it would weaken other areas of the game, and those areas are vital, too. D&D is destined to do its best to serve many chefs, because the broadest possible appeal of the game is not necessarily the one with the tightest possible combat engine. This will always be a bee in some folks' bonnet. Which is why everyone has their Fantasy Heartbreaker, more tuned for what they personally want out of D&D, while dropping things that make D&D broadly appealing.

Oh, nah. For me it's about changing some spells and cutting others. It's not "Tradition is Bad!" it's "Tradition can occasionally lead to ignoring better design choices in favor of just maintaining momentum"

Control spells aren't the issue, it's their implementation being tied to a rigorous standard of older versions of the same thing that is the issue. It's why I went into a breakdown and build up of potential solutions to the problem specifically around Hold Person rather than saying "Get rid of hold person"

That said, yeah, there are some spells that should just go. Clone/Simulacrum stuff, Wish, etc. These things should absolutely exist within the fantasy, but not as part of your daily spell list is all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, nah. For me it's about changing some spells and cutting others. It's not "Tradition is Bad!" it's "Tradition can occasionally lead to ignoring better design choices in favor of just maintaining momentum"

Control spells aren't the issue, it's their implementation being tied to a rigorous standard of older versions of the same thing that is the issue. It's why I went into a breakdown and build up of potential solutions to the problem specifically around Hold Person rather than saying "Get rid of hold person"

That said, yeah, there are some spells that should just go. Clone/Simulacrum stuff, Wish, etc. These things should absolutely exist within the fantasy, but not as part of your daily spell list is all.

Wish is fine the downside makes it fine. Gaining wish via summons or shape change.

Simulacrum probably needs to return to its AD&D form.

Shapechange and true polymorph need to go. Turning into a dragon isnt a problem. Turning into anything you want can be.

 

[Staffan]

In looking at 5.5 and playing it, there have been some adjustments to the math. I think it the spreadsheet balance is consistent, but the in-play experience is a bit different:

• Monsters hit harder if you use the 5.5 MM, but healing is massively buffed, so they cancel each other out IME.

The one D&D campaign I'm in still uses 5.0, so I couldn't say for certain. However, it appears to me that if you increase monster damage and PC magic healing by similar amounts, it might be a was for the day as a whole, but making in-combat healing more relevant.

 

[SlyFlourish]

For ten years I struggled a lot with this stuff and then Doom points from Tales of the Valiant came out. I renamed them "dreadful blessings" in my game so I could flavor them as things like "Blessings of the Nameless King" or "Blessings of Ibraxus" or whatever.

I replace Legendary Resistance with these things and, at higher levels, I usually drop a few more onto a creature. Currently about five per big boss in high-level campaigns but I might do six at 19th level.

Dreadful Blessings are visible to the players. I use cool metal shadow of the demon lord tokens for it. That way players see them and know they're there.

A boss can expend one of these at any time to do a lot of different things, including automatically saving on saving throws but also things like ripping through force cages, penetrating resistances, getting advantage on a volley of attacks. Last night I used three at once to let the boss make three full action attacks (18 attacks from a marilith) against three targets. Once I used two so a dragon could break a stun, recharge a breath weapon, and then use it.

A big key, and the biggest complaint I've heard, is that they're arbitrary. GMs can use them for about anything. I get it, but man, at high levels, we really need something that can work against anything because poor bosses get hit by everything. Just dealing with saves isn't the problem. It's huge character defenses. Skyrocketing saving throws. Huge damage spikes. World-breaking terrain manipulation. There's no single mechanic that can deal with all of that and still let a boss feel like a boss.

Dreadful Blessings seem like total cheat cards for the GM. They are total cheat cards for the GM. But they're limited and players love to burn them down. I regularly have players throwing save or suck abilities on bosses now just to burn down their dreadful blessings. I've surveyed about eighteen players I've used these with and pretty much to a player they're totally fine with them.

Being a good GM who's able to recognize where to use them and where not to is important. I will, for example, let a dragon be stunned until the beginning of their turn at which point they automatically break the stun. I'll let them rip open a wall of force but it takes their action to do so. It lets me tune things both so the boss isn't totally screwed but also costs them something. It's a bit of advanced GM work to get them right, I think, but they've totally changed my game.

I'm running a currently 19th level 5e campaign with six players and three different versions of 5e at the same table and Dreadful Blessings made keeping up the challenge so much easier.

So that's been my solution.

 

[Zardnaar]

For ten years I struggled a lot with this stuff and then Doom points from Tales of the Valiant came out. I renamed them "dreadful blessings" in my game so I could flavor them as things like "Blessings of the Nameless King" or "Blessings of Ibraxus" or whatever.

I replace Legendary Resistance with these things and, at higher levels, I usually drop a few more onto a creature. Currently about five per big boss in high-level campaigns but I might do six at 19th level.

Dreadful Blessings are visible to the players. I use cool metal shadow of the demon lord tokens for it. That way players see them and know they're there.

A boss can expend one of these at any time to do a lot of different things, including automatically saving on saving throws but also things like ripping through force cages, penetrating resistances, getting advantage on a volley of attacks. Last night I used three at once to let the boss make three full action attacks (18 attacks from a marilith) against three targets. Once I used two so a dragon could break a stun, recharge a breath weapon, and then use it.

A big key, and the biggest complaint I've heard, is that they're arbitrary. GMs can use them for about anything. I get it, but man, at high levels, we really need something that can work against anything because poor bosses get hit by everything. Just dealing with saves isn't the problem. It's huge character defenses. Skyrocketing saving throws. Huge damage spikes. World-breaking terrain manipulation. There's no single mechanic that can deal with all of that and still let a boss feel like a boss.

Dreadful Blessings seem like total cheat cards for the GM. They are total cheat cards for the GM. But they're limited and players love to burn them down. I regularly have players throwing save or suck abilities on bosses now just to burn down their dreadful blessings. I've surveyed about eighteen players I've used these with and pretty much to a player they're totally fine with them.

Being a good GM who's able to recognize where to use them and where not to is important. I will, for example, let a dragon be stunned until the beginning of their turn at which point they automatically break the stun. I'll let them rip open a wall of force but it takes their action to do so. It lets me tune things both so the boss isn't totally screwed but also costs them something. It's a bit of advanced GM work to get them right, I think, but they've totally changed my game.

I'm running a currently 19th level 5e campaign with six players and three different versions of 5e at the same table and Dreadful Blessings made keeping up the challenge so much easier.

So that's been my solution.

All the ingredients are there in 5E.

It just depends if people will accept them. I've tested some conceptually should probably post them later.

Its not just the control spells its also the large damage spikes and everything else you mentioned.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Identify all the problematic control spells and change them to one level higher than they are now?

Like you said about math, if a spell can "negate" the combat of a certain CR level creature, then make it a higher level spell than it was.

(a bad? example? ... Cone of Cold is basically a save or suck against lower CR creatures...so a spell that could "take out" a cetain CR of boss monster should be [insert math ration i cant figure out] X level of spell.

All that does is kick the fan down the road. Either you've just made those spells worthless because they fail so often they aren't worth deploying, or you've simply made it so lower level parties never get access to them at all, which is functionally the same as banning them entirely.

As stated: choosing not to solve the problem and instead taking away the toys. You've chosen a more subtle version of path 1.

 

[Zardnaar]

All that does is kick the fan down the road. Either you've just made those spells worthless because they fail so often they aren't worth deploying, or you've simply made it so lower level parties never get access to them at all, which is functionally the same as banning them entirely.

As stated: choosing not to solve the problem and instead taking away the toys. You've chosen a more subtle version of path 1.

Yeah 4th ed stripped them out for most part.

Either you have to redesign defenses imho or strip them out. Even 4E defenses dont work with 5E power levels.

Gap between a good and bad save needs to be closer to 3 or 4 points not 11. 5 points I suppose with abilities capped at 20. 6 if you choose a dump stat.

Still better than 11.

 

[SkidAce]

All that does is kick the fan down the road. Either you've just made those spells worthless because they fail so often they aren't worth deploying, or you've simply made it so lower level parties never get access to them at all, which is functionally the same as banning them entirely.

As stated: choosing not to solve the problem and instead taking away the toys. You've chosen a more subtle version of path 1.

It was my thought that their being a higher level would equal their impact on fights, AND mean the players would have less of them, solving the spamming of low level control spells problem.

But still have them available, but a harder choice to make.

 

[fuindordm]

We want D&D combat to be dynamic: back and forth, full of suspense. I take 5 damage, I deal 10 in return. But as any OS player will tell you, the smart play is not to fight fair, but to win with overpowering advantage and control is the easiest way to gain that tactical advantage. And so players will opt for the spells that deny action economy to their enemies while maximizing their own action economy.

If you want your D&D sessions to feel like dramatic storytelling -- smash 'em up video games, pro wrestling, or action movies -- then controlling and nullifying threats is detrimental to that atmosphere.

If you want your D&D to sit more on the simulationist end of the spectrum, and keep the players risk-averse and engaged with tactics like real-world commandos, then control spells are beneficial. A party who manages to sneak or bluff their way to the big boss and shut it down without major damage amply deserves their xp and treasure!

The problem is that this orientation is often left undiscussed, and creating either experience involves much more than the spell/resistance rules. They include the various pc builds, the setting context, etc. In particular, the "action movie" experience requires more design effort on individual encounters, while the "gritty realism" experience requires more design effort on the overall terrain (i.e., the dungeon, not the rooms).