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

[Marc17]

Tactical Rules
Cinematic Rules
Monster Role Rules

Not quite sure if it what you mean by cinematic rules, but since interaction is so unsupported in the rules, I have thought about using something similar to Forged in the Darkness for that. Basing desired free play actions off of the skills with a negotiated results such as:

1-5 No, and...
6-10 - No
11-15 Yes, but...
16-20 Yes
21+ Yes, and...

 

[Minigiant]

And my point is that you draw intent from the fact no one did it and accuse developers if lazily trying to offload finishing the game to 3pp, while we do not know why it happened or what the intent or reasoning was.

At not point did I claim designer laziness.

I have theories but they are far and away from designer work ethic. But again without being a former designer there I cannot have proof.

 

[Distracted DM]

then you buff up rest of damage spells and not make only decent damage spell waste of a 3rd level spell slot.
I love A5E, but that change is ignored from the start, even houseruled for scaling in opposite direction.

Yeah I'm wondering if spell upcasting needs a buff in general in 5e, after seeing (I think) mearls say something about it.

 

[SkidAce]

Maybe replace Legendary Resistance with 1st Ed. Magic Resistance.

A monster with a % resistance rolls that first. Say the resistance is 50%. Since the caster is 9th level instead of 11th, the resistance becomes 60% (base +5% per level below 9th). So now there's a 60% chance the spell fails completely, doing no damage at all; even if the spell works, the creature still gets a standard save.

 

[Kannik]

Not quite sure if it what you mean by cinematic rules, but since interaction is so unsupported in the rules, I have thought about using something similar to Forged in the Darkness for that. Basing desired free play actions off of the skills with a negotiated results such as:

1-5 No, and...
6-10 - No
11-15 Yes, but...
16-20 Yes
21+ Yes, and...

I'd caution here that this type of mechanics (which I enjoy) work better with a bell-curve dice system than with a linear 1 die roll (d20), unless you enjoy seeing quite a bit of swing, both from roll to roll and strings of poor (or excellent) results.

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe replace Legendary Resistance with 1st Ed. Magic Resistance.

I using a variant of 1E mixed with 3.5 minis game.

6, 11, 16. Roll that or more on a d20. 90% MR 1E would become 19.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

At not point did I claim designer laziness.

I have theories but they are far and away from designer work ethic. But again without being a former designer there I cannot have proof.

I argue saying 5e was designed with assumption there will be 3rd party content to add things they said they wanted but didn't deliver is claiming designer laziness. It's whole reason I am arguing with you

 

[Minigiant]

I argue saying 5e was designed with assumption there will be 3rd party content to add things they said they wanted but didn't deliver is claiming designer laziness. It's whole reason I am arguing with you

My guess was
Corporate crunch and 5e's thinner schedule .

I mean that was the reason the the 2014's DMG bad layout, I'm balanced roots, and poor referencing. it was rushed. Don't ask me for the quotes unless you wanna listen to 5 hours of podcasts.

 

[Lanefan]

I have an issue with that assumption in itself because we AGAIN do not know if it was their intent, nor what was the mindset and reasoning behind it. You are, once more, making assumptions.

Known: There were holes in the design, whether intentionally put there* or not
Learned since: The designers knew very early on that at least some of these holes existed
Learned since: The designers did not fix these holes.

Resulting options:
--- the holes could be left as they were - play on!
--- individual DMs could fill them on their own - kitbashers of the world, unite!
--- 3rd-party publishers could put out expansion books to fill them, and the OGL allowed for this.

I fail to see what's controversial about any of that.

* - if all you're arguing about is whether or not these design holes were left intentionally, well, who cares? The end result is the same either way.

 

[Marc17]

I'd caution here that this type of mechanics (which I enjoy) work better with a bell-curve dice system than with a linear 1 die roll (d20), unless you enjoy seeing quite a bit of swing, both from roll to roll and strings of poor (or excellent) results.

It was a thought, but never tested. It was designed to be in PCs favor with the assumption that every party would have their own primary person to take such actions and with 5E's preference to have very high stats and proficiency in desired skill would usually be +7 at 1st level. I may have even made Yes, and... at 25+. Still, it was generally assumed that rolls would only get better as PCs reached higher levels (and would probably not work exactly that way against named NPCs)

My current idea is to work off the Influence action against a chart of plotting the degree of cost and risk to the person being influenced and their relationship to the PCs. Those relationships being described as traits (ally, patron, friend, contact, neutral, rival, enemy, nemesis) and other traits given to NPCs that go along with their personalities and beliefs.