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

[SkidAce]

Go check out what BoCD is going for nowadays.

Still got my copy lol.

$80 bucks Noble Knight Games.

(I still have mine also..)

 

[SkidAce]

...
3e and 4e WOTC flooded us with content and modular rules. 5e WOTC was anemic. 5e books barely have a dozen new spells in them.

...

I understand and respect your points.

However, some of us look at the line above as a good thing, a strength.

I think it was you that said (and if I'm wrong I apologize) "I'm tired of hearing how it lets you homebrew or gives you space"...

In reality for ME, that is the strong point. I dont deny they said "modular" and then failed to deliver. Agreed.

But 5E, for some groups, is a framework. A strong one for the basics, covering "most"* of the gameplay needed. If I need something else, unique to my world say, I create it. If theres a flaw, I fix it. Dont need to be overwhelmed (my words) with constant options book after book. (Yes of course I like some options and new stuff can be cool)

But I dont need it. "Life finds a way" (I need more dinosaurs in my campaign)

On a side note, its not black and white, or extremes. After everything I said above, I ALSO steal kingdoms, countries, organizations, deities, etc and incorporate them into my world.

How's that for a dichotomy?


*for a certain value of most

 

[Minigiant]

That is probably not true. I mean, it might be my bias, but it seems a lot of fans of previous editions switched to 5e, at least initially. Some may have moved on to other alternatives, but my impression is that few have gone back to older versions of D&D specifically. Those who want a simpler game focused on dungeon crawling go for Shadowdark, those who want complex character creation with deep customization go for Pathfinder 2e, and so on.

I think you're confusing two similar but related ratios. It's true that most D&D players today started with 5e. But that's not the same as saying most players of previous editions stuck with those. It's just that there have been so many new players that the old-timers are a minority

A lot of fans from previous editions did switch. But based on the age and starting demographics, most of those concerts are under 45 years of age and started with 3e, 4e, or started in late stage 2e.

 

[tetrasodium]

The DMG doesn't tell the players anything. It tells the DM. Also, 3e's body slots were designed to limit the amount of bonus-providing magic items you could have. This role is primarily taken up by the Attunement rules in 5e. And the DMG body slots were often too restrictive regarding which things went where (notably, cloaks were used for both resistance bonuses to saves and for Charisma bonuses), which is why they were loosened up in the Magic Item Compendium along with allowing you to add a numerical bonus to an item with an active effect (e.g. making a cape of the mountebank and resistance +2 without paying a two-effects surcharge).


That is probably not true. I mean, it might be my bias, but it seems a lot of fans of previous editions switched to 5e, at least initially. Some may have moved on to other alternatives, but my impression is that few have gone back to older versions of D&D specifically. Those who want a simpler game focused on dungeon crawling go for Shadowdark, those who want complex character creation with deep customization go for Pathfinder 2e, and so on.

I think you're confusing two similar but related ratios. It's true that most D&D players today started with 5e. But that's not the same as saying most players of previous editions stuck with those. It's just that there have been so many new players that the old-timers are a minority.

You are splitting the hair a bit too finely there. The days of players being forbidden from reading the DMG are a long way past & it didn't even work out that well as an expectation way back then. The exact line I was referring to from dmg141 is "Use common sense to determine whether more than one of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A character can't normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak. You can make exceptions; a character might be able to wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or to layer two cloaks."
The 2024 rules seem even worse in this regard with "You can’t wear more than one of certain magic items. You can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, or one cloak. The DM might make exceptions." where character was switched to a very much player facing "you".

The 2014 entry might seem reasonable at first glance if you are unfamiliar with the underlying items, but the items themselves are largely carried over from past editions where there were about ~12 in 4e to ~24 in 3.x body slots with some of them technically different enough to cheese it like gloves & gauntlets or shirt vest armor. The ability to confidently create a slot conflict has been stripped from the 5e GM's toolkit, character sheet level support would exist on par with 3.x/4e & dndbeyond would contain a function that allows a GM to choose/define what body slots the characters in their campaign had available if the absence of that GM tool were not still true 11ish years in.

I've literally had a player show up to the FLGS wearing four backpacks to argue why his 18 strength PC should be allowed more than one pack and the total void of GM support is to blame for that

 

[SkidAce]

...
I think you're confusing two similar but related ratios. It's true that most D&D players today started with 5e. But that's not the same as saying most players of previous editions stuck with those. It's just that there have been so many new players that the old-timers are a minority.

I'm a minority...rawr!

 

[Eric V]

Saying "google it" or waving your hands nebulously in a general direction doesn't cut it. Show me the money. If you make a claim, cite your sources or it doesn't exist.

Nah. You're not his supervisor. He doesn't owe you anything; you're just a random guy on a message board. He's not trying to get an academic paper published, either. He is making a claim, doesn't have the citation on hand at the ready, but knows what one can use as a search if they are so inclined. If one is not inclined, fine...but that's just because one wants to be right; has nothing to do with the truth.

Things exist even if no one cites them.

 

[Minigiant]

I understand and respect your points.

However, some of us look at the line above as a good thing, a strength.

I think it was you that said (and if I'm wrong I apologize) "I'm tired of hearing how it lets you homebrew or gives you space"...

In reality for ME, that is the strong point. I dont deny they said "modular" and then failed to deliver. Agreed.

But 5E, for some groups, is a framework. A strong one for the basics, covering "most"* of the gameplay needed. If I need something else, unique to my world say, I create it. If theres a flaw, I fix it. Dont need to be overwhelmed (my words) with constant options book after book. (Yes of course I like some options and new stuff can be cool)

But I dont need it. "Life finds a way" (I need more dinosaurs in my campaign)

On a side note, its not black and white, or extremes. After everything I said above, I ALSO steal kingdoms, countries, organizations, deities, etc and incorporate them into my world.

How's that for a dichotomy?


*for a certain value of most

I didn't say it inherently is a bad thing.
You are literally the kind of person I mentioned in another post #506

But for many of the people who currently play 5e, I have to say most likely the majority, the publishing strategy provides for them poorly.

 

[mamba]

If you make a claim, cite your sources or it doesn't exist.

what exactly is the claim you are referring to?

As far as I can tell the OP contains the following quote from Mearls

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.

Did they have a better solution? Probably not or they would have used that instead. Not sure what kind of proof you need either, if the designer of the game tells you that they had to do a thing, there will not be a document they can wave at you to show that their statement is true, nor is it reasonable to expect one. It seems reasonable to assume that they know what they are talking about given that they were involved at the time. Mike is the source here…

This might leave ‘LR is a cheap hack’, that is pretty much self-evident as far as I am concerned. Is that what you need proof for?

 

[billd91]

Nah. You're not his supervisor. He doesn't owe you anything; you're just a random guy on a message board. He's not trying to get an academic paper published, either. He is making a claim, doesn't have the citation on hand at the ready, but knows what one can use as a search if they are so inclined. If one is not inclined, fine...but that's just because one wants to be right; has nothing to do with the truth.

Things exist even if no one cites them.

It's not like we own anybody our belief either. You want to be believed when you make an assertion? Back it up with the receipts otherwise you might as well be blowing smoke.

 

[Zardnaar]

what exactly is the claim you are referring to?

As far as I can tell the OP contains the following quote from Mearls

Did they have a better solution? Probably not or they would have used that instead. Not sure what kind of proof you need either, if the designer of the game tells you that they had to do a thing, there will not be a document they can wave at you to show that their statement is true, nor is it reasonable to expect one. It seems reasonable to assume that they know what they are talking about given that they were involved at the time. Mike is the source here…

This might leave ‘LR is a cheap hack’, that is pretty much self-evident as far as I am concerned. Is that what you need proof for?

LR worjs. Problem is everyone casts spells and disabling sells start at level 1 now.

Caster damage basically sucks so stunlock sonething and let the martials deal with it.