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

[tetrasodium]

It's two fold.

The spells were simplified and thus removed the barriers and limitations D&D's powerful magic could run into.

Those "barriers" were important balancing elements that got discarded on the altar of simplicity in service of more simplicity for players only.

The monsters were simplified so they lacked the raw numbers nor additional defences they needed to resist D&D magic outside of case by case basis.

Again they served as both a defense for monsters in addition to a positive incentive for players to choose different more cooperative spells over encounter ending ones that leave others feeling useless if the spell lands.

So monsters had to be clutched on the back end by giving them legendary resistance spell resistance and various saving through a proficiencies just to be valid boss monsters.

You couldn't simply grab a monster and use it as a boss they had to be designed as a boss in order to have the wrong numbers needed to be boss worthy. There was no real way to calculate how strong giving a monster legendary resistance and spell resistance on the back end from a blank state.

You couldn't simply give your fire giant legendary resistance and spell resistance and have a good handle on how strong that monster would be and would be mostly winging it.

This isn't describing anything that should be be considered an improvement. If simplicity is an improvement, then the benefits of that simplicity should be self evident enough to stand on their own, the 5e legendary resistance with six trivially targeted saves and widely applied god wizard type debuff/control save or suck/lose/die spells falls very far from being able to stand as an improvement once there is more than one player who's experience matters.

 

[Minigiant]

Those "barriers" were important balancing elements that got discarded on the altar of simplicity in service of more simplicity for players only.

Again they served as both a defense for monsters in addition to a positive incentive for players to choose different more cooperative spells over encounter ending ones that leave others feeling useless if the spell lands.

This isn't describing anything that should be be considered an improvement. If simplicity is an improvement, then the benefits of that simplicity should be self evident enough to stand on their own, the 5e legendary resistance with six trivially targeted saves and widely applied god wizard type debuff/control save or suck/lose/die spells falls very far from being able to stand as an improvement once there is more than one player who's experience matters.

I'm not saying any of the simplicity should be seen as improvement

Personally I think "hard control" spells should be either 2 checks like 3e

1. 2 saving throws
2. Attack roll then saving throw
3. HP check then saving throw

The benefit of pure damage spells should be that they deal with damage on a fail or success and they only require one check.

This would give sorcerers and school specialists a boon because in special situations they be able to either sway one of the roles in their favor or bypass them.

It also could make level 9 magic feel even more special because those spells when targeting people could be only one save and cause extreme debilitarizing effects or death on failure. But you would only have one shot and wish would not be able to be used to copy them.

But IMHO

6 Saves > 3 saves

I just love all of the harmful binding or banishment spells to be charisma saving throws. It's just so interesting where you're pretty much using your own force of personality to push the spell and say "no I am HERE!".

 

[Staffan]

Also, if we drop to three saves, which is what the discussion is about, those would condense back into fortitude, reflex and will. Con, dex and wis are the three stats I see placed consistently highly. People like hit points, AC/initiative, and perception/insight.

I think that if you're going to three saves, you should adopt the save stats from 4e: Fortitude uses the best of Strength and Constitution, Reflex the best of Dexterity and Intelligence, and Will the best of Wisdom and Charisma.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think that if you're going to three saves, you should adopt the save stats from 4e: Fortitude uses the best of Strength and Constitution, Reflex the best of Dexterity and Intelligence, and Will the best of Wisdom and Charisma.

I would do that. Blend 3.x and 4E.

6 saves doesn't really work tbh.

 

[Minigiant]

I would do that. Blend 3.x and 4E.

6 saves doesn't really work tbh.

6 saves works just fine.

People just too set in their ways to make Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma spells.

 

[Zardnaar]

6 saves works just fine.

People just too set in their ways to make Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma spells.

Its also adding complexity for complexity sake.

You would have to add a lot of spells. Theres around 9 that target intelligence iirc.

 

[Stalker0]

Two items, Stone of Good Luck and Cloak of Protection are uncommon items, and the Ring of Protection is rare. The rest are going to be harder to find. Yes, they take attunement, but that a choice the player will have to make. Choices are an important part of the game.

Also, if we drop to three saves, which is what the discussion is about, those would condense back into fortitude, reflex and will. Con, dex and wis are the three stats I see placed consistently highly. People like hit points, AC/initiative, and perception/insight.

Between those things and proficiency, and the ability to get proficiency in another save with a feat, I doubt many 20th level PCs would be at +0.

I think the notion that enough players will:

1) Be able to pick these specific magic items (5e still operates under the notion that the DM, not the players, choose the magic items)
2) Have the attunement slots to grab these items and haven't opted for something else.
3) Will spend one of their precious precious feats to get this bonus

that we should consider that a "default position" for 20th level characters is what I don't agree with. Your right, its all about choice....and so when there are plenty of choices, its a bad assumption to choose a default and use that as the basis for an argument.

 

[Scott Christian]

5e was designed with an open skeleton for an old school fanbase with an assumption that 3PP would produce modules for 3e fans, 4e fans, and story forced game fans

It didn't happen.

Yes, that is why it was the best selling TTRPG of all time.

 

[Minigiant]

Its also adding complexity for complexity sake.

You would have to add a lot of spells. Theres around 9 that target intelligence iirc.

No it's a better solution.

Again the core problem is that 5th edition had these good ideas but it did not want to or did not attempt to straight far enough from traditional content that it ended up creating mistakes.

It's the same thing as how they created monsters and had them you saving bonus is based on their ability modifiers forgetting that spell casters can add their proficiency modifier to their DC and always use their best score. So they literally have a CR24 ancient Red Dragon with only a +2 bonus to its wisdom saves in 2014.

Once they decided play your characters complex they also had to make monsters complex.

 

[Zardnaar]

No it's a better solution.

Again the core problem is that 5th edition had these good ideas but it did not want to or did not attempt to straight far enough from traditional content that it ended up creating mistakes.

It's the same thing as how they created monsters and had them you saving bonus is based on their ability modifiers forgetting that spell casters can add their proficiency modifier to their DC and always use their best score. So they literally have a CR24 ancient Red Dragon with only a +2 bonus to its wisdom saves in 2014.

Once they decided play your characters complex they also had to make monsters complex.

So make up a huge amount of new spells vs cutting to 3 saves?

Or more effective SR/MR.

Monsters can still be simple. +20 on all saves fixes and lot.