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

[Not a Decepticon]

I am annoyed by people who try to "fix" Legendary Resistance instead of fixing the "I win button" spells, got in at least one argument with a youtuber about it once

 

[James Gasik]

Because anything else has no place in the core D&D books.

Something like that should be in an optional book like Unearthed Arcana, like it was in 3e but WotC dialed back book production so much that there just isn't any room in the schedule for such a book. It's just not worth the effort as the cost/profit benefit has not been great back in 3e. Such optional rules are now the domain of 3rd party, better accept reality.

Something like this: Using Spheres Of Power - Spheres of Power Wiki

I recall a time when an alternate system (Psionics) was found in the AD&D core books. I don't see why an alternative would "have no place" in the core books.

 

[Lanefan]

I had a Red/White/Blue deck back in the day full of multi-lands and every counter for a specific type of card that you could cast - Stone Rain, Counterspell, Flash Counter, Swords to Plowshares, Disenchant. If you could cast it, I could destroy it. It was incredibly annoying to play against and the only benefit is I played it quickly.

That was often my strategy as well, with a healthy dose of milling so I could run the opponent out of cards.

Didn't work very often, but man was it ever satisfying when it did! (yes, I was nasty to play against 'cause I loved drawing out the opponent's agony if s/he didn't just concede)

But that's all ages ago; I got out around 2008-2010 and sold all my cards during covid.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not really because casters would get more slots per day.

That's not the problem.

They're barely using the ones they've got apparently.

 

[Lanefan]

The spell list -really- needs to have a lot of the tradition cut out of it... but.

I don't think control spells are the real issue, there, so much as the structure of them being -so- stridently carried over from previous editions. Take "Hold Person" as an example.

You've got a long duration effect, you lock the target down completely, everyone gets to whup their butt without fear and with crits, etc. It's just -too- packed. And it does it all with a total of 4 mitigating factors:

1) Saving Throw.
A simple binary of "Yes, controlled" or "No, spell ends". There is no scenario in which this is a good design goal. There should always be levels of success to spells like this, perhaps even -gated- by the type of entity you're casting the spell on rather than a yes/no blip. I don't even mean humanoid vs dragon vs beast. I mean normal enemy versus Elite or Legendary or whatever term you wanna use. Make it take partial effect in some cases.

2) End of Turn Saves.
This is awful, in my opinion, on its face. In the best case scenario, the caster and their -entire- party act after the villain and everyone gets to take a full round of swats before they get a chance to save. Worst case? The caster's turn ends, the held target's turn begins, and they save at the end of their turn. All the spell did was go "No" to a single turn.

3) Concentration.
Great in theory, mildly annoying in play. But hey. If you hold the BBEG fighter, at least one of his minions can throw a pebble at you, deal 1 damage, and force you to make a DC 10 Con save or lose your spell. Exists both to make control spells and buff/debuff spells less common and more risky than they already are.

4) Legendary Saves
The great middle finger to any spell whatsoever.

So how do we make them better?

1) Variable Effect
Sure you could use saving throw degrees. But how about having controls -be- several levels of effect that impact different creatures to different degrees and in some different ways? Could base it on Proficiency Bonus difference between you and your target. If their proficiency bonus is 3 or more higher than your own, the spell has no effect, save or otherwise. (A nice 'brown trousers!' moment for the party). Proficiency 1-2 higher it has a lesser effect than full power, but it still works. Proficiency equal or -1 to your own? Totally normal effect of the spell. Proficiency -2 to you? BIGGER EFFECT. Proficiency -3 to you, or greater? You just stop that person from contributing, ever again. Might as well have reduced them to 0hp. No save, they're just -wrecked- by the spell. (Also good for a 'brown trouser' moment if the party tries to punch Strahd at level 1 and he just stops the entire group in their tracks with a dismissive gesture, finishes his monologue, and walks away.)

2) Start of Turn -CONTINUAL- Saves
Rather than the spell simply ending when they make the save on the end of their turn, they can roll at the start to see how badly it effects them. On a successful save, the spell is still in effect, but they can at least act to some degree. Hold Person is also less annoying to the player since, hey, maybe you'll still get to act on your turn instead of being locked out of the game, entirely. But hey, it's still annoying, so how about:

3) Spend your Action to End the Spell
You wanna break free from Hold Person? Spend an action to roll a saving throw that ends it in a dramatic fashion. Break the golden chains that bind you. Tear your way free of the vines and thorns. Overcome the psychic compulsion. Whatever it is, you take the time to specifically break and end it. Dramatic. Flavorful. Players -and- NPCs get to do it, which makes things more interesting.

4) Get Rid of Legendary Saves
You no longer need them.

Is it perfect? No. But it's better than what we've got.

All this does in principle is nerf lockdown spells even more, to the point of what's the point?

Sorry, but lockdown is and should be just that: lockdown. You're out of action, completely vulnerable, and dead unless your allies can carry the day.

 

[Remathilis]

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!

Yes yes, combat as sport vs combat as war.

The problem is that control can ruin both types of play. If the players figure out certain control methods are overwhelmingly viable, they will spam it at every encounter possible. Which leads to either PCs using the I win button every fight or the DM starts using ways to nullify it (magic resistance, condition immunity, etc) and the arms race begins. Smart play stops being smart when control spells end every encounter before it starts, then it's boring and tedious play.

 

[Lanefan]

No please not. Let damage dealing go, spell casters don't need to be better at martials in everything. Spell effects should be interesting in other ways IMO. But remove boring control spells effects like strong save-or-suck-effects.

So if they can't do damage and they can't cast save-or-suck (which includes anti-buffs), what's left?

Buffing allies? Boring boring boring.
Divinations? Should be doing that before combat, not during.
Summoning? Yeah, let's make this long combat take longer by adding more idiots to the mix.
Illusions? What's the point, as they too have been nerfed into uselessness.

 

[Minigiant]

2e & 3.x were vancian. In 5e everyone was changed to spontaneous & flexible neovancian casting. 4e as ADEU. It would avoid a lot of problems if 5e were vancian

Not really because casters would get more slots per day if we stuck to Vancian.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I think hypotethical 6e should take a page out of Draw Steel and have similiar mexhanic, where stronger effects are accessible the longer combat goes or more victories players amass, but whenever they rest, this resets. This way we can ward "I win button" spells behind a "turn 3/requires 5 victories" and by time they get enough to use them first turn, the party will need to decide if they'd risk being stomped by enemies if they open with onlow hp and resources for a chance to use the op abilities first turn, or would they rather rest and face difficult enemies at full health.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I guess if the players are happy to totally nerf the big boss in a very anticlimactic way... I guess that's fine, but as a player I'd be a bit let down.

I wouldn't! I and the party would hail it as an easier-than-expected victory, maybe even an upset against the odds, cheer, and happily move on.

And sometimes, the big boss is going to totally nerf you.