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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Not quite. They upgrade their success by 1 step specifically versus incapacitation effects (or, if the effect uses an attack roll or skill check, downgrade that by 1 step). Slow, which you used as an example, isn't an incapacitation effect, so it's great against bosses. Particularly if you're a sorcerer so you can re-cast it if they succeed on their save – trading two of your actions for one of the bosses might not feel great, but it's often one of the more efficient things you can do. Particularly since many monsters have various things going on where you really don't want them to be able to spend three actions doing nastiness to you (e.g. Strike + Grab + Constrict).

Oh right, sorry been a minute. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Lanefan]

I'd love it if the designers were more open about how and why they make some of the decisions they do.

In part, I'd appreciate that because I think that D&D's competing goals are actually one of the good things about the game. D&D is serves many masters "well enough" that folks with many different goals can come and gel around the same table. This means that the game is not optimized for a particular play experience, and that this lack of optimization is ultimately a good thing, even if it is ALSO the reason that certain segments of the D&D fandom will never truly be happy with it.

If the designers were more transparent about what they were doing, it could help people choose the right bits of modular design that would work best for their tables.

For the bolded to happen the overall design would need to be a whole lot more modular than it is.

Modular design is antithetical to unified design, and unified design has (other than a brief glimmer of hope during 5e playtest) been a stated intent of every WotC edition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For the bolded to happen the overall design would need to be a whole lot more modular than it is.

5e is actually VERY modular, and I think that was the intent. For instance, it's not hard to rip out the skills system, or the Hit Die system, or to insert Flanking, or to change how rests work, or to ignore Bastions, or to use or not use Downtime, or, as we've seen in this thread, modify or replace the Legendary creature designation. There's no reason you can't just use Mearls's recommended reactions instead or in addition to your typical Legendary features starting today. Hot swapped.

While not perfectly modular (it ain't tryin' to be GURPS or anything), it's quite good. Compared to 3e or especially to 4e, the core system is pretty resilient, and tolerates a lot of plug-and-play. It'd be nifty if there was more, but I'd wager there's some costs to modularity, too.

What it ISN'T is well-explained. Like, with Legendary creatures, why are there no CR 1 Legendaries? Or, if I'm building a Legendary creature, do I need to increase its hp total? And then does that impact the CR? Should my Legendaries be at the CR of the party's level, or should they be higher to get a good "boss monster" effect? And do legendary resistances come as part of that Legendary package? Or is it just the actions? And lair actions or regional effects, do those play into it at all?

Most of these questions probably have official answers that the team generally holds to, but if I'm a first-time DM in 2025 looking to make a cool boss encounter for my first level 1 adventure...there's not much guidance for me to use the system to do what I want, or much forgiveness when I make my big bad a Bandit Captain who then gets taken out of the game with a low roll against Sleep. The 2024 edition is more cagey than before for the most part, especially when it comes to the monster design (which is a bugaboo of my own). Then I have an underwhelming encounter and come online to bemoan how D&D has to appease so many traditionalists that it can't just delete Sleep from the game, instead of understanding more precisely how to do what I was looking to do in the design of my own table's experience and how certain kinds of effects could be addressed (and why those effects are good to include for use in other contexts, but maybe don't be precious about them if they don't work for you).

 

[Minigiant]

5e is actually VERY modular, and I think that was the intent. For instance, it's not hard to rip out the skills system, or the Hit Die system, or to insert Flanking, or to change how rests work, or to ignore Bastions, or to use or not use Downtime, or, as we've seen in this thread, modify or replace the Legendary creature designation. There's no reason you can't just use Mearls's recommended reactions instead or in addition to your typical Legendary features starting today. Hot swapped

Thats not modular design.

5e used DLC design.

That's like how the first version of every Sid Meier's Civilization game strips out bits of it and leaves gaps. Then they add in the DLCs that reinsert Religion or Ideology or Trade systems in later.

Except WOTC expected 3PPs, Fanzine writers, bloggers, Kickstarters, and forums to do it.

But really no one really did it. Almost every was the side optional stuff. Bastions/Strongholds. Mas Combat. Pets. Potions. Crafting.

Not much that was critical to the core game loops of combat, exploration*, or social interaction.

I have a better Language subsystem variant rules and a variant rules that adds more tactical and cinematic fighting within the game damage assumptions. But few to no big publishers pushed in these big modules of there own. No big homebrewer is sliding out these houserules in big displays so everyone could see, try, and discuss. All you have is ENP's redesign in A5e or KP's TOV. And really it's just A5E.

For as big 5e is... the only notable mod for years was A5E.

Ain't nobody really rewrite all the control spells to be less cheesy on Bosses but we all figured out the problem very ago.

*Okay exploration got variant rules because core 5e exploration was written for people who don't play 5e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not much that was critical to the core game loops of combat, exploration*, or social interaction.

2014 had the Ideals/Traits/Bonds/Flaws system (interaction), the Downtime system (exploration), different Resting recommendations (exploration again), and several dials to turn on the Combat side (flanking, marking, new spells, new magic items, new monsters, even Legendary monsters). 24 isn't quite as robust, but maintains several of those old subsystems and introduces a few itself (Bastions can fire on all three modes between hirelings, base-building, and benefits that can empower you in a fight).

Again, I wouldn't argue it's perfectly modular (Some of the assumptions for combat were hard to move, and it's not like they did much with the potential in practice), so there's certainly room to grow. But for D&D, it has a significant amount of modularity - 5e did not try to place elegance and cohesion above table-curated experiences the way 4e did, for instance.

 

[Minigiant]

2014 had the Ideals/Traits/Bonds/Flaws system (interaction), the Downtime system (exploration), different Resting recommendations (exploration again), and several dials to turn on the Combat side (flanking, marking, new spells, new magic items, new monsters, even Legendary monsters). 24 isn't quite as robust, but maintains several of those old subsystems and introduces a few itself (Bastions can fire on all three modes between hirelings, base-building, and benefits that can empower you in a fight).

Most of those were side modules, not internal or replacement modules.

They weren't that many internal or replacement modules for fifth edition however, if I am correct fifth edition was designed in a way for those internal and replacement modules particularly so that those internal modules would not be required aspects of the game.

For example maneuvers were pulled out of the Battle Master subclass and added back in as access to other classes and the fighter in other subclasses via a feat or a fighting style choice.

Or like flanking there was a small enough gap to add advantage into the game in combat with a small restriction and not completely messed up to combat math. Perhaps you could have made another kind of combat system that had the same amount of weight as Advantage when you do a certain movement successfully but few people did it.

Or like the base of this whole thread: Legendary resistance. Alot of people didn't like it.

Voices of the coast could have made a variant rule that you could use to replace legendary resistance if you didn't like it they didn't.

Someone else could have made a very old so you can replace resistance resistance if you don't like it but...

5e was kind of built with the assumption that the community didn't like being told what to do and they would rally around creating the things that were left empty in the gaps but we did not do it and complained that Wizards didn't make official version of it.

Spoiler

But I kinda get it because it's a lot of work and too many people pirate and steal for you to want to put the effort into doing something nice. So people prefer the ones who have the money and market and power and resources to do it.

 

[Stormonu]

This situation is indeed bad, but it reminds me of how much worse it was back in the day. The 1985 Unearthed Arcana book was rushed into print because TSR needed cash fast, so it contained even more errors than usual. In November 1985 Dragon magazine published an article of UA errata and rule clarifications, and in January 1987 the “Sage Advice” column was devoted entirely to reader questions about UA material. Apparently none of this material was ever incorporated into later printings of the book, so only some magazine readers and collectors would have had access to it even years later! Much of the UA content had first appeared in various articles Gygax wrote for Dragon, so if any of it was changed for publication in UA that would potentially make three different versions.

Computer game publishers now have it fairly easy, as they can just distribute updates over the Internet.

Ironically, the 2013 Premium Edition reprint of Unearthed Arcana incorporates that errata. Just a tad late...

 

[Lanefan]

Turning into a long day, so not going to get too in-depth here...

Did you notice that not one of those things is participating? Because I have been very clear about this being about gameplay and participation.

Becoming part of the audience is, by definition, not participation. You even used that very phrase in that very line! Your first, allegedly "best" option, was to "seamlessly slip from participant to audience". Meaning, you stopped being a participant. If you stop being a participant, that means you aren't participating. I have been talking about participation the whole time.

You've been talking about engagement, which participation is just part of.

Yes, you're not participating; that lack of participation does not have to equate to complete disengagement unless you actively choose such.

It isn't, and any game that had a disclaimer like that would instantly get a significant negative hit. That you don't want to understand this is not relevant to whether it is true or not.

I'm not so convinced about that; and I suspect the up-front honesty would, in the long run, be highly appreciated.

No. You aren't getting what I'm saying. Games are not sports. Games are not wars. They are games. Trying to pretend that a game is either of those things leads to problems, because games--at the very least, TTRPGs where you have a defined Game Master-type role and other such things typical of D&D-type play--fundamentally do not and cannot work the way either sports or war does. In sport, if the referee were also the head coach of one of the teams, that would be an instant scandal. If the referee is even slightly too friendly with one of the teams' coaches, that would be a flagrant violation of ethics (and possibly laws!) Conversely, the purpose of war is not survival (generally speaking; few wars are wars of extermination, for a variety of reasons). The purpose of war is completion of objectives. That's why Sun Tzu said, "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." A war where not a single person dies, not a single city is besieged, not a single building is destroyed, is the most successful war possible.

Both "war" and "sport" are fundamentally inapplicable to a game environment. As you yourself already said, the duty is entertainment, not survival:

Which means that neither war nor sport actually captures what a game is about. You can certainly use it to indicate the type or kind of entertainment you personally seek! But that type or kind is still merely a leaf on the tree, whose trunk is entertainment.

D&D maps to a sport in that it has, in the DM, a referee.

I'm not, at all, making a semantic argument here. I am specifically rejecting the entire "sport/war" dichotomy as doubly wrong-headed.

I find it an excellent thumbnail analogy that neatly encapsulates the basic difference between early-era D&D and today's game.

Uh...no?

What on earth are you talking about here?

Kill 'em and take their stuff play - i.e. murderhobo play - is a valid and time-tested playstyle. To dismiss it as being nothing but disruptive is a poor take.

Absolutely not. I...thought I was quite clear that such things have merit. They just are not part of gameplay.

If I'm roleplaying my chaacter and-or if someone else is roleplaying theirs, that's undeniably a part of gameplay.

Just because it might not right-now involve everyone at the table doesn't diminish that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Thats not modular design.

5e used DLC design.

That's like how the first version of every Sid Meier's Civilization game strips out bits of it and leaves gaps. Then they add in the DLCs that reinsert Religion or Ideology or Trade systems in later.

Except WOTC expected 3PPs, Fanzine writers, bloggers, Kickstarters, and forums to do it.

But really no one really did it. Almost every was the side optional stuff. Bastions/Strongholds. Mas Combat. Pets. Potions. Crafting.

Not much that was critical to the core game loops of combat, exploration*, or social interaction.

I have a better Language subsystem variant rules and a variant rules that adds more tactical and cinematic fighting within the game damage assumptions. But few to no big publishers pushed in these big modules of there own. No big homebrewer is sliding out these houserules in big displays so everyone could see, try, and discuss. All you have is ENP's redesign in A5e or KP's TOV. And really it's just A5E.

For as big 5e is... the only notable mod for years was A5E.

Ain't nobody really rewrite all the control spells to be less cheesy on Bosses but we all figured out the problem very ago.

*Okay exploration got variant rules because core 5e exploration was written for people who don't play 5e.

That's like calling my car windshield modular because I could stick (illegal) tint in it, the windshield has not provided any special support and the tint is doing all of the work. What you are describing is often called a "fantasy heartbreaker", it's a total rewrite.

2014 had the Ideals/Traits/Bonds/Flaws system (interaction), the Downtime system (exploration), different Resting recommendations (exploration again), and several dials to turn on the Combat side (flanking, marking, new spells, new magic items, new monsters, even Legendary monsters). 24 isn't quite as robust, but maintains several of those old subsystems and introduces a few itself (Bastions can fire on all three modes between hirelings, base-building, and benefits that can empower you in a fight).

Again, I wouldn't argue it's perfectly modular (Some of the assumptions for combat were hard to move, and it's not like they did much with the potential in practice), so there's certainly room to grow. But for D&D, it has a significant amount of modularity - 5e did not try to place elegance and cohesion above table-curated experiences the way 4e did, for instance.

The ideals/bonds/traits/flaws bolt on wasn't even complete. What got bolted on for the theater geek crowd was only the half providing an excuse for players to say "well my character...." And absolve themselves of their own agency in deciding that. The other half that said things like "well your character is a greedy rogue so...." to the player of said greedy rogue

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For the bolded to happen the overall design would need to be a whole lot more modular than it is.

Modular design is antithetical to unified design, and unified design has (other than a brief glimmer of hope during 5e playtest) been a stated intent of every WotC edition.

This isn't true. You can have unified design, and also have modular design.

Like...modularity can be actually significantly enhanced by having a clear, clean, unified core with consistent interactions/linkages. Having a consistent fundamental system makes it easier to add on local exceptions that don't jump outside their lane unless you allow it to.

For example: having both saving-throw-based actions and attack-roll-based actions results in dramatically more difficult design if you want to make a "tactical combat module" supporting 4e-style play, siloed off from the rest of the rules; both internally, because it has more things to interface with, and externally, because there are more interactions you have to test to make sure nothing goes wrong mechanically (e.g. the value of +1 attack is not the same as the value of a -1 penalty to saving throws enemies roll). If, instead, all offense actions are attack rolls, you can have various different approaches.

Or consider Dark Sun, with its hazardous environments and metal rarity. 2e's rather hodgepodge saving throw structure makes that significantly harder to design, and makes providing equally-well-tested alternative approaches difficult. WotC-era D&D with its standardized saves makes this much easier to test and implement, and allows you to see, directly, how it impacts things. Likewise, having a unified structure for how item design works means that you can make clear, straightforward rules for weapon breakage, more easily test to make sure that those rules are reasonable instead of extreme (whether ineffectual or excessive), and generally puts item-related stuff into an easier-to-handle space, especially since you can add setting- or context-specific properties or effects.

Sprawling, ad hoc, messy design usually doesn't make modularity easier. It just means everyone--designer or player--has a harder time seeing what the consequences will be, and a harder time testing for interactions. That will slow down players discovering unexpected synergies or poor-performing options...for the same reason that it will slow down designers discovering those things.

The only way it is "easier" is that you can go more confidently into wrong choices because you have less information.