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

[Alzrius]

Then I don't owe him (or whoever) credulity. ¯\(ツ)/¯

For reference, the underlying principle being referred to here is that of Hitchens's Razor, i.e. that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And the way you know I'm right about that is that I made sure to link to the Wikipedia page which confirms it.

 

[Zardnaar]

in which way? by allowing for the spells to be resisted instead of having to address the underlying issue? sure, but that also is what makes it a cheap hack


so there is a problem then, why not address it?


address caster damage then, instead of trying to bury flaws under a pile of kludges because you could not be bothered to actually address them

Its easier to tweak kludges tha rewrite the system.

Eg upgrade spell resistance on bosses to Rakshasa's Greater Spell resistance.

Double LR also works.

 

[Zardnaar]

Honestly at this point if you played 5e at launch, you're also an oldtimer.


There has been "save or die" disable spells at level 1 since oD&D. If anything, it was worse in the TSR era with Sleep than anything anyone can do in 5e.

Sleep was limited.

Ive seen comnand work on CR16 with SR and +8 wisdom save.

Command 5.0 is limited. 5.5 one isnt.

If its not comnand its tashas or Sleep. Throw in the usual suspects or run around twinning Tashas Mindwhip.

Personally I'm tweaking bosses and next campaign has dead magic and wild magic.

Easiest kludge is Greater Magic Resistance.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Cook:

"The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there. In this game, you play what you want to play. It’s our goal to give you the tools to do so."

Mearls 13 years ago:
"wizards and the way they approach spells is fairly iconic to D&D, but the chief advantage of a class-based game is that we don't have to lean on one magic system. We've already shown some subtle differences between how clerics and wizards use spells. As we show off more classes, we can show off more approaches to magic.

Vancian magic has been an issue in D&D since the first house rules in 1974, and I think this is our chance to offer people options there, rather than dictate things."

First of all, once you provide quotes, you should also include the sources, othertwise I do not know where to look and see if they actually said that and you are not making things up.

Second, you didn't even said which Cook since there is at least two and, to my knowledge, neither worked on 5th edition.

Third, none of these quotes say they intended for these modular/alternative options to come from 3rd party publishers, if anything it is very clear that they intended to make such rules as part of mainline books of the game, the opposite of your claim they designed it with assumption other companies will finish the game for them.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Sure, if he was trying to get published or whatever...this is just a message board, there's no burden. You can look it up yourself, but you won't because you might discover he's right.

No, even in a casual discussion like this burden of proff is on one making the claim.

 

[mamba]

Its easier to tweak kludges tha rewrite the system.

yes, but that is also why Mearls calls them a cheap hack. The better solution is to fix the system than put a some duct tape on the worst parts. It makes for a better overall game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

address caster damage then, instead of trying to bury flaws under a pile of kludges because you could not be bothered to actually address them

just IMO. but casters don't need their capabilities in yet another area of gameplay improved

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, even in a casual discussion like this burden of proff is on one making the claim.

Sure, but you can definitely exaggerate for what kind of proof you require in a casual discussion about RPGs. Asking for the exact quote including a direct link to the interview or forum post or whatever feels pretty much like that, at some point it's okay to settle for what you got and move on accordingly. We're not debating a court ruling here.

 

[Zardnaar]

yes, but that is also why Mearls calls them a cheap hack. The better solution is to fix the system than put a some duct tape on the worst parts. It makes for a better overall game.

True but since none of us here are going to write our own 6E....

 

[Minigiant]

First of all, once you provide quotes, you should also include the sources, othertwise I do not know where to look and see if they actually said that and you are not making things up.

You'd think I'd actively fabricate the quotes after being asked for them. That would be idiotic.

Mearls' from a 13 year old Reddit AMA.
Cook's from the 2nd Legends and Lore article that you can't see the original of and only can reread the forum posts and blog posts about like this one

Second, you didn't even said which Cook since there is at least two and, to my knowledge, neither worked on 5th edition.

Obviously not Zeb Cook. Monte Cook. Before Mike Mearls took that role.

Third, none of these quotes say they intended for these modular/alternative options to come from 3rd party publishers, if anything it is very clear that they intended to make such rules as part of mainline books of the game, the opposite of your claim they designed it with assumption other companies will finish the game for them.

And that was my point. That 5e was designed with the assumption that there would be modules.

But they never produced them.

So there was a point when the strategy was to produce internal modular rules "in house"

Then there was a decision to no longer produce modular rules.

So... who want supposed to make the modular rules if they weren't gonna?
Who was supposed to create the rules variants that keep the boss monster from being extremely vulnerable to control spells and requiring DM to grind out a party's magic before inducing a legendary monster?

But that's besides the point.
The point is the variant rules that would have let you have a tactical or cinematic boss fight without bleeding the casters of spells got cut from 5e in the design stage.