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

[mearls]

Thank you for response! Any chance you can give us more insight on what the original design team thought about "modular" design and how it was implemented in 5e? You may or may not be aware, but that is an often debated subject on these boards.

Also, I've been following your Odyssey work and it is really interesting. Thank you for digging into the nuts and bolts of 5e an looking at ways to make it better. I've been waiting to update my homebrew 5e game because I like a lot of what you have been developing (not 100%, but a lot ). Any goals / plans for when you might publish the system?

In terms of modular design, the idea was to keep each segment of the game as independent as possible. If we could carry over only the absolute core of things - stats, hit points, AC - then it would be much easy to add new rules elements or adjust things. The DMG had a ton of variant rules because of that thinking.

I think that modular shifts a bit depending on what an individual person think it means. It probably would have been smarter back in the day to say things like "flexible" or "easy to adapt". Like compatible, it's a term that invites people to fill it in with their own take on what it means.

It's funny that the biggest pain point in the game - monsters - has the most instances of drawing too much from the rest of the system. For instance, monsters were not supposed to use proficiency based on their CR. They were instead supposed to have a skill rating that could change based on their story and nature.

Odyssey and the work on my Patreon is definitely going to see publication in some format. I've been having some great chats with publishers, but too early to say where things might settle.

 

[Zardnaar]

In terms of modular design, the idea was to keep each segment of the game as independent as possible. If we could carry over only the absolute core of things - stats, hit points, AC - then it would be much easy to add new rules elements or adjust things. The DMG had a ton of variant rules because of that thinking.

I think that modular shifts a bit depending on what an individual person think it means. It probably would have been smarter back in the day to say things like "flexible" or "easy to adapt". Like compatible, it's a term that invites people to fill it in with their own take on what it means.

It's funny that the biggest pain point in the game - monsters - has the most instances of drawing too much from the rest of the system. For instance, monsters were not supposed to use proficiency based on their CR. They were instead supposed to have a skill rating that could change based on their story and nature.

Odyssey and the work on my Patreon is definitely going to see publication in some format. I've been having some great chats with publishers, but too early to say where things might settle.

I took modularity to mean the optional rules in the DMG.

A 1E fighter alongside a 4E one was really champion and battlemaster.
Some took it literally though.
.2Ecwas the most modular D&D ever. I don't think we will see that level again.

Replaying 2E in 2025 I'm running it differently vs 2012 vs 2000 vs 1996

 

[Not a Decepticon]

My guess was
Corporate crunch and 5e's thinner schedule .

I mean that was the reason the the 2014's DMG bad layout, I'm balanced roots, and poor referencing. it was rushed. Don't ask me for the quotes unless you wanna listen to 5 hours of podcasts.

See, that reasoning I can see, if you led with that, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Known: There were holes in the design, whether intentionally put there* or not
Learned since: The designers knew very early on that at least some of these holes existed
Learned since: The designers did not fix these holes.

Resulting options:
--- the holes could be left as they were - play on!
--- individual DMs could fill them on their own - kitbashers of the world, unite!
--- 3rd-party publishers could put out expansion books to fill them, and the OGL allowed for this.

I fail to see what's controversial about any of that.

* - if all you're arguing about is whether or not these design holes were left intentionally, well, who cares? The end result is the same either way.

No, it is important because implying the game was designed eith the idea other piblishers will go and fix it, it is the same as callind developers lazy and such claim need evidence for.

 

[Minigiant]

See, that reasoning I can see, if you led with that, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Well there's no way to prove that.

I'll be going "Bah Corporate WOTC bad" without a lick of evidence not ability to get any. That's not me

 

[Eric V]

See, that reasoning I can see, if you led with that, we wouldn't have this discussion.

No, it is important because implying the game was designed eith the idea other piblishers will go and fix it, it is the same as callind developers lazy and such claim need evidence for.

It's really not the same. That's an inference YOU are making; it's certainly not what Minigiant said.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for the response and really glad to hear this part:

Odyssey and the work on my Patreon is definitely going to see publication in some format. I've been having some great chats with publishers, but too early to say where things might settle.

I can't (though I guess I will have to) wait to see the final product.