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

[Minigiant]

I am starting to think you reply to my posts without reading them.

I am starting to think you think my theory is based on me thinking the 5e designers acted maliciously.

I don't.

I FULLY believe that the 5e designers FULLY intended to create deep, playtested, well made, modular rules.

But something happened.

And they shifted to a strategy where they would rely on 3PPs to do it.

But that something happened AFTER they designed the design space for those rules.

But no one but Wizards employees past or present will ever know what the something is as it is internal discourse. So us outsiders can see the hole, see and heared what what's WOTC planned to fill the hole with, but we can never determine why they choose not to fill the hole themselves.

All I'm stating is that

1. The design space holes exist
2. WOTC acknowledged the holes
3. They weren't filled by WOTC
4. They weren't filled by 3PPs who were allowed to fill the holes for free and given platforms to do so
5. The holes still remain 10 stinkin' years later

I don't know what is sooo controversial.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Why they didn't have little text block with different spell lists under caster monsters is beyond me.

Or different weapon/armor set ups on warrior weapon users.

Probably too close to 3E's templates, which have been considered verboten. 3e was much more modular than 5e around foes as you could upgrade them with templates, more HD or classes.

But 3e was way more information dense than 5e, which drives me nuts. Its Web2.0 desiga book. book. 3E was able provide exemplar PC-class NPCs for 1st-20th level in like 5 pages, covering every PHB class. Making a striker/controller/soldier variant of each one would have only been 15 pages to provide around 600 NPC exemplars.

Another thought is that adding role-variants would also allow thinking in CR models based on roles and party mix. "A party with few casters is more vulnerable to controllers, while a party with no defenders is vulnerable to strikers. Add +1 CR to each foe in that role." Essentially tuning CR for the table.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The other part of 4E I wish had survived was more of the Ritual Casting. 5.5 really hates Ritual Casting, but it should have been made more prominant, like a background feat, IMO. The idea of the fighter having Unseen Servants clean their armor, the rogue learning Identify so they didnt need to involve a wizard with their loot, the Barbarian able to summon a ghost horse, all that just felt more like what d&d should be. Fewer people with high power magic, more with things that are almost useless in combat.

It’d be a neat idea if everyone just got a number of free rituals known equal to their INT modifier (swappable on level up, availability based on character level being treated as a fullcaster spell access, so a 5th level fighter could learn a 3rd spell level ritual), it’d increase the usefulness of INT too, I don’t really see a way to implement the idea without improving the wizard’s versatility even further but it’s a concession I’d be willing to make this one time for the sake of everyone else.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah.

At Gamehole Con, Mearls stated that damage spells were too weak.

They needed to boost spells up to the level of Fireball or maybe even higher.

It's even worse on a monster side where as spells themselves deal way too little damage when aimed at PCS. You tap out on level 9 damage spells like at mid CR.

I think that fireball is about right for a 3rd level slot for area, but could use some tweaking so I combined it with scorching ray and reduced it to 2nd level:

Fireball
2nd level evocation(fire)
Cast time: 1 Action
150ft range
5d6 fire damage, 15ft radius, dex save for half

you can reduce radius by 5tf to increase damage by d6 for every 5ft reduction.
Radius of 0ft turns it into ranged spell attack. No save, half damage on a miss.

upcasting:

3rd level: 8d6 damage, radius 20ft
4th level: 10d6, 25ft
5th level: 12d6, 30ft
6th level: 15d6, 35ft
7th level: 17d6, 40ft
8th level: 19d6, 45ft
9th level: 22d6, 50ft

its about same power for 2nd and 3rd level slots, but scales a lot better later on.

 

[dave2008]

I am not sure I agree with your statement, but I am curious. What holes are you talking about? I ask primarily because whatever perceived holes 5e has I feel they have been filled by 3pp (or my own homebrew as no one does armor as DR correctly IMO).

All I'm stating is that

1. The design space holes exist
2. WOTC acknowledged the holes
3. They weren't filled by WOTC
4. They weren't filled by 3PPs who were allowed to fill the holes for free and given platforms to do so
5. The holes still remain 10 stinkin' years later

I don't know what is sooo controversial.

 

[Minigiant]

I am not sure I agree with your statement, but I am curious. What holes are you talking about? I ask primarily because whatever perceived holes 5e has I feel they have been filled by 3pp (or my own homebrew as no one does armor as DR correctly IMO).

Tactical Rules
Cinematic Rules
Monster Role Rules

 

[Stormonu]

It’d be a neat idea if everyone just got a number of free rituals known equal to their INT modifier (swappable on level up, availability based on character level being treated as a fullcaster spell access, so a 5th level fighter could learn a 3rd spell level ritual), it’d increase the usefulness of INT too, I don’t really see a way to implement the idea without improving the wizard’s versatility even further but it’s a concession I’d be willing to make this one time for the sake of everyone else.

I don't think it would necessarily be a good fit for every character, though I'm not against non-casters getting some out-of-combat abilities that can give spells a run for their money.

There is, however the Magic Initiate feat you could use for the above (for those who want it, or give it everyone at 1st level for that sort of game) with just a minor tweak - change the number of (ritual) spells to INT modifier and allow the chosen spell to level up as the character advances.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think it would necessarily be a good fit for every character, though I'm not against non-casters getting some out-of-combat abilities that can give spells a run for their money.

There is, however the Magic Initiate feat you could use for the above (for those who want it, or give it everyone at 1st level for that sort of game) with just a minor tweak - change the number of (ritual) spells to INT modifier and allow the chosen spell to level up as the character advances.

oh yeah i wouldn't object to rituals being one option in a list of per INT features, alongside stuff like fighting styles, tool proficiencies and languages, for people who didn't want magic on their character.

i know magic initiate and ritual caster exist but it still costs a feat one way or another (i mean like you say GMs could just give it to their players for free but how many actually do?) and unless its significant to their character concept there's often going to be alot of other things that people are going to want for their character before they start considering dedicating one of their few feat options to picking one of those.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

And they shifted to a strategy where they would rely on 3PPs to do it.

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've seen scry-and-fry happen numerous times in 1e, never mind 3e where it was far easier to pull off.

It's a thing, IME.

"See[ing]" itis an incredibly low bar. I've seen it too, more than once led along by a gm hoping to prune a dead end branch on player led unproductive side quests. My point was not that it did not happen, it was more that the amount of handwringing and pearl clutching it gets dramatically over states the frequency of a bit super common and somewhat mind numbing tactic that tended to quickly burn out it's own motivation/willing to play along even when attempted hard.