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

[Stalker0]

Cough

4e did it. 5e copied.

I don’t believe so. Might have been a few powers that allowed it, but in general you could not move 2 squares, so a power, and then move the rest of your speed.

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t believe so. Might have been a few powers that allowed it, but in general you could not move 2 squares, so a power, and then move the rest of your speed.

Most strikers has attack powers that have movement and minor action movement powers.
And the ones that didn't had pushed and slides so you technically moved away.

Some defenders too.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thought I did

6 saves is better that 3 saves because if you actually design spells targeting all six saves, a spellcaster would have to prepare six spells in order to properly Target a weak save.

If you only have three saving throws then a spellcaster only needs to prepare three spells in order to always Target the weak save.

AKA Preparing

Watery Sphere
Ice Storm
Cone of Cold
Synaptic Static
Charm Monster
Banishment

Vs
Ice Storm
Cone of Cold
Charm Monster

Targeting a monster's worth save would be more costly when you have six saves to worry about.



Nah it's really just that fans want some really strong control or control effects and making them only 1 roll Save or Suck is too much.

Since D&D is not going to go with tiered levels of success. It might have to go with "Fail Twice and Suck".

It's actually easier than it look because you're just rolling against the same DC twice most of the time.

Roll twice vs spell DC.
Succeed twice, no effect.
Faill once, minor effect.
Fail twice, major effect..
Roll 2 1s, Roll a new PC.

3 saves and no weak saves or the difference is 1-4 points vs 11.

Designing more spells isnt the solution when simple fix is eliminate bad saves.

 

[Minigiant]

3 saves and no weak saves or the difference is 1-4 points vs 11.

Designing more spells isnt the solution when simple fix is eliminate bad saves.

My point is you're more likely to get Wizards to design more spells than to design a system where there's no bad saves.

Because many of the problems are self-inflicted via bias and nostalgia.

 

[Zardnaar]

My point is you're more likely to get Wizards to design more spells than to design a system where there's no bad saves.

Because many of the problems are self-inflicted via bias and nostalgia.

Bad saves were only one edition.

Tradition and nostalgia you would have good saves.

 

[Lanefan]

Its also adding complexity for complexity sake.

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

Easy enough to tweak any spell that targets either Intelligence or Wisdom to instead target both, with the victim having to use the worse of the two saves...

 

[Lanefan]

Hot take: if the issues in Tier 2 5th edition happen in Tier 1, 5e sells less than 4e. 5e is lucky that most of the criticisms arrive with it happen around the time most campaigns end.

That's not luck, that's actual good design: you get the bits right that most of the people are going to use most of the time, then let the other bits (that people don't use nearly as often) fend for themselves.

1e and 3e did much the same thing. They got low-mid level right - which is where the vast majority of play occurs - and didn't worry nearly as much about high level where the wheels fall off.

 

[Lanefan]

Bad saves were only one edition.

Tradition and nostalgia you would have good saves.

Tradition and nostalgia would lead to both - you'd have bad saves at low level progressing to good saves at high level.