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

[Scribe]

I mean, I'm not sure he's wrong at all.

 

[AlViking]

Control spells are primarily an issue if you think solo boss monsters are a good idea and have ever worked well in D&D.

Yes legendary resistance is a patch but the game is full of them.

 

[Zardnaar]

MR in 2e should have ran like 1e with higher level spellcasters being better able to bypass it. But the real resistance for high level monsters was their saving throws which increased to the point where using a control spell (even without magic resistance) was a risky proposition which likely wouldn't land.

I played 2E this year and yeah.

Main thing I've been tweaking over the years is high saves and a simple MR system similar to 2E (specifically 3.5 minis game).

Bring back 3 saves and add elements of 4E (eg ref saves are dex or int) off you go.

 

[Yaarel]

I played 2E this year and yeah.

Main thing I've been tweaking over the years is high saves and a simple MR system similar to 2E (specifically 3.5 minis game).

Bring back 3 saves and add elements of 4E (eg ref saves are dex or int) off you go.

I think there should be four saves: Fortitude, Reflex, Will, ... and Perception. These four kinda handle everything.

 

[Rabulias]

I like his ideas (as well as some of those in the comments), but I don't see them as a replacement. Rather, I would add these into the mix to create a broader tiered spectrum of control resistance options. Listed in rough order of increasing power:

Saving Throw Proficiency
Saving Throw Expertise
Saving Throw stat increase
Legendary Action for a Saving Throw Bonus
Custom Reaction for a Saving Throw Bonus
Custom Reaction for a Saving Throw Bonus plus a bonus effect
Failing a control spell Saving Throw only blocks standard actions
Standard Legendary Resistance

This provides a variety among bosses, and keeps the players guessing. It also provides a smoother ramp up of enemy power that the players encounter before they get to "The DM says 'Nope!'"

 

[I'm A Banana]

The full take is a lot more nuanced. Specifically:

I don't care if chump monsters fall victim to spells or special attacks. They appear in large numbers, so taking out one or a few doesn't do anything.

The problem isn't that control spells ruin 5e, it's that they specifically ruin difficult encounters against one hard threat. And that Legendary Resistance is a bit of a kludge to make that not true.

And I'm fond of his more specific reactions, though I think they're maybe a little narrow. Like I've pointed out in other threads, D&D 5e has limited distinctions for encounters that are basically "resource attrition" and encounters that are meant to be more tactical showcases against powerful and deadly opponents.

Basically, "boss encounters" vs. "the dungeon itself is the boss, and this encounter is one of its attacks."

In the former, control spells are a problem that we need something like Legendary Resistance or these moves Mearls thought of here to solve for, since we WANT a multi-round conflict where most every hit or miss or resource expenditure matters. In the latter, control spells are just another way to mitigate damage and take out what the dungeon can throw at you.

D&D's got a lot of the former, though it grew up in the latter, and this is one of the friction points.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I think there should be four saves: Fortitude, Reflex, Will, ... and Perception. These four kinda handle everything.

That's kinda brilliant.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I like it, but it's bland and boring. I'd much rather see legendary resistance made more unique for the monsters. This monster over here uses it's legendary resistance to reflect the spell back at the caster/group as if it had cast it. That one over there eats the spell to regain health. The third one takes the magic and wraps it around itself gaining AC for a while. And so on. Give it some flavor.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

Ever since Mearls said stuff like this and how Boss Monsters keep on dying, it's been nothing but chaos on. EnWorld.