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

[FrogReaver]

I mean...

If it wasn't control spells we'd be arguing that summon spells are OP.
If it wasn't summon spells we'd be arguing large aoe damage spells are OP.
If it wasn't large aoe damage spells we'd be arguing buff spells are OP.

That said, I do think low level control spells are overtuned. I also think many control spells are too strong due to lenient DM interpretation/tactics.

2024 made this worse by allowing control spells to scale number of targets with spell slot and by making it much easier for them to be grabbed on any caster.

The biggest problem now is multiple characters with any spell slots piling on low level control spells until 1 lands on a solo monster.
I don't think lowering accuracy/boosting monster defenses of/to them is a great solution.

I really think most need to do something small and ramp up to full effect over 2-3 turns, but that's a major redesign. This would also feel better to players when control hits them. Lower level spells should mostly start and stay with small effects

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, that's not exactly what @mearls said. But here's an excerpt from the latest post on his Patreon.

Legendary resistance is a cheap hack, jammed into 5e because we didn't have a better solution to the broken control spells that we had to include in the game for tradition's sake.

How's that for an intro?

I mean… yes, that is true, and anyone vaguely engaged in charop circles knows it.

As incendiary as the statement might be, it's fundamentally true. D&D changed over the years, but its content remained the same. The spells that give DMs headaches today had counters in AD&D when they were first released. As the game shifted over time, those spells retained their core functionality while monsters lost their defenses against them.

This reasoning for it, though, is frankly nonsense. I mean, maybe it’s true that older editions’ monsters had defenses against save-or-die spells and other such auto-win buttons, I don’t have the experience with those systems to weigh in on that. But it’s not like they didn’t know about this. 4e had already solved this problem, so it’s clear they were well aware the problem existed. And I understand, I was there in the thick of the WotC forum debates during the D&D Next open playtests, I remember well the demand for save-or-die spells to return (but just don’t have them actually kill the target, they said. That’ll be enough of a downgrade, they said. ). But again, they clearly knew this was a problem, they clearly chose to include such spells anyway, and for some reason they decided not to include whatever defenses Mearls claims monsters used to have against them in older editions? WHY??

It's an interesting post and worth a complete read.

What's your opinion on control spells and legendary resistance?

My opinion is, yes, these spells break the combat system and legendary resistance is a lame, hacky solution to that problem. No question. But it’s not like they couldn’t have come up with better, not so hacky solutions. Or, if they couldn’t, don’t include those spells. Tell the 3e grognards to suck it up, buttercup. That crowd has mostly abandoned 5e by this point anyway. Shame they didn’t take the opportunity to fix this mistake in the 2024 revisions.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean… yes, that is true, and anyone vaguely engaged in charop circles knows it.

This reasoning for it, though, is frankly nonsense. I mean, maybe it’s true that older editions’ monsters had defenses against save-or-die spells and other such auto-win buttons, I don’t have the experience with those systems to weigh in on that. But it’s not like they didn’t know about this. 4e had already solved this problem, so it’s clear they were well aware the problem existed. And I understand, I was there in the thick of the WotC forum debates during the D&D Next open playtests, I remember well the demand for save-or-die spells to return (but just don’t have them actually kill the target, they said. That’ll be enough of a downgrade, they said. ). But again, they clearly knew this was a problem, they clearly chose to include such spells anyway, and for some reason they decided not to include whatever defenses Mearls claims monsters used to have against them in older editions? WHY??

My opinion is, yes, these spells break the combat system and legendary resistance is a lame, hacky solution to that problem. No question. But it’s not like they couldn’t have come up with better, not so hacky solutions. Or, if they couldn’t, don’t include those spells. Tell the 3e grognards to suck it up, buttercup. That crowd has mostly abandoned 5e by this point anyway. Shame they didn’t take the opportunity to fix this mistake in the 2024 revisions.

Hey I was a 3E player and I wanted fixed saves in a fixed 3.5.
Hell started houseruling it near the end.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's the same problem as Magic: The Gathering. It's often a better play to nullify your opponent than to defeat them quickly (unless you can do so faster than they can act). Shutting down an opponents opportunity to act is almost always the best (and most unfun) play.

This is just… the opposite of the case in literally any competitive Magic format. Maybe it was true at one time, but it has not been the case for many, many years. Cards do way too much now, trying to spend your resources on stopping your opponent from winning instead of presenting your own win faster is a sucker’s game anymore.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is just… the opposite of the case in literally any competitive Magic format. Maybe it was true at one time, but it has not been the case for many, many years. Cards do way too much now, trying to spend your resources on stopping your opponent from winning instead of presenting your own win faster is a sucker’s game anymore.

IMO, they deliberately design away from that unfun playstyle now.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hey I was a 3E player and I wanted fixed saves in a fixed 3.5.
Hell started houseruling it near the end.

Well, yeah. But to your credit, you were vocal about this being an issue back then too. You were one of the regulars who was most dialed-in to the implications of the system’s math, and you correctly predicted basically all of the problem builds before the PHB was even out. I don’t blame you for the way things ended up, you were one of the few voices of reason back then.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

What's your opinion on control spells and legendary resistance?

I basically agree with the title, and use a homebrew rule that any enemy that I would deem a "boss" enemy gets infinite legendary resistances which are only usable against crowd control spells/abilities. Players are always told which enemies have legendary resistance so they don't waste their turn. This fix works really well in my experience

 

[Charlaquin]

IMO, they deliberately design away from that unfun playstyle now.

The thing is, competitive play sucks now. It’s a coin flip, followed by two people playing solitaire, where the person who won the flip has a significantly higher chance of winning at solitaire first. Or four people playing Solitaire in CEDH. That’s what happens when you make all the win conditions too powerful for interaction to keep up with; the game becomes uninteractive. Pauper is the last bastion of competitive constructed play where there’s an actual back-and-forth instead of just a race to get your unbeatable bomb off before the other guy does. Or, I guess you and three of your friends can all agree to pretend the game isn’t horribly broken together and play Bracket 1-4 Commander.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, yeah. But to your credit, you were vocal about this being an issue back then too. You were one of the regulars who was most dialed-in to the implications of the system’s math, and you correctly predicted basically all of the problem builds before the PHB was even out. I don’t blame you for the way things ended up, you were one of the few voices of reason back then.

Yeah it was when my fighter player pointed out he had all these new options.

But he was crap comparatively vs his 2E one. With worse magic items.

That was the one who soloed the marilth, lich, dragon in 2E. In 3 rounds.

 

[Zardnaar]

The thing is, competitive play sucks now. It’s a coin flip, followed by two people playing solitaire. Or four people playing Solitaire in CEDH. That’s what happens when you make all the win conditions too powerful for interaction to keep up with; the game becomes uninteractive. Pauper is the last bastion of competitive constructed play where there’s an actual back-and-forth instead of just a race to get your unbeatable bomb off before the other guy does. Or, I guess you and three of your friends can all agree to pretend the game isn’t horribly broken together and play Bracket 1-4 Commander.

I bailed in 2010 after Tarmogoyf and Jace the Mindsculptor.

Buying house also contributed.