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

[Minigiant]

Here is the thing: I don't actually see any value in players not being able to target a weak save. It just means that by random chance, sometimes a player character can't contribute with their useful spells. Is that really great? Or alternatively, it means a spell casters entire effectiveness hinges on them optimizing their spell load-out for this one purpose, needing more system mastery and reducing built options.


It's far better if you design the game so that targeting weak saves is feasible but a single save doesn't turn a challenging fight into a cake-walk. It should be a serious of smart decisions that yield victory, not a single decision followed by a single roll. And especially great if the decision is based on stuff happening during gameplay (either advance research or learning the monster's weakness during combat), not as character building exercise.

Oh I am also a proponent of 2 saving throws to get the "Sit Down. You're Done" level of effects.

Fail first Charisma saving throw and you start fading away.
Fail second Charisma saving throw and...

 

[Minigiant]

. The good design would have been accepting that the math starts breaking down beyond level 7-12ish and condensing PC classes down to fewer levels or inserting a cultivation style bottleneck that requires a second step in chargen with a slightly different set of rules/options that allow continued progression without overwhelming the base system and monsters

Or you balance the game as it progresses in power.

IMHO stopping the game at "level 10" is the cowards way out, openly admitting to your aesthetic biases, or stating that there is a very specific vibe you are going for. Because it's not like there aren't options for solutions.

 

[Remathilis]

)There really should be a lot more banishment and binding spells (Charisma saves). Fantasy series deal heavily with binding and banishment.

But that loops us back to the original problem Mearls is trying to fix: one shot fight ending spells. Both hold person/monster and banishment remove a foe from combat to focus fire on other targets, then focus fire on it when other threats are neutralized.

 

[Minigiant]

But that loops us back to the original problem Mearls is trying to fix: one shot fight ending spells. Both hold person/monster and banishment remove a foe from combat to focus fire on other targets, then focus fire on it when other threats are neutralized.

I'd do multiple saves.

Let me show a homebrew example from my table:
Chains of Banishment
4th level Conjuration
Range 30 feet
Duration 1 minute (Concentration)

A tiny portal opens up to another plane at a point within range. Glowing chains spring forth from the portal and attempt to engulf one creature that you can see within 30 feet of that portal. The creature makes a Charisma saving throw reducing the creature's Speed by 20 feet on a failed save or 10 feet on a successful one

On a failed save at the end of the creature's next turn, the creature must make a Strength saving or be dragged into the briefly expanded portal and transported to a random location on a plane (DM’s choice) associated with its creature type.

My group's wizard uses it on seconds of command as the bosses tend to make one of the 2 saving throws.

 

[Scott Christian]

Boatoads is not everybody.

That's why this thread exists.

Because even one of the original designers admitted that parts of the game doesn't work and they had to use an unfun kludge in order to make it kind of work.

Because the designers of the revision of the addition recognize that it was a problem and they gave almost every tier two or greater iconic monster Proficiency in multiple saving throws.

It's just like sports a championship team typically has a couple average or bad players. If one or two of the good players get injured, and you have to play one of those average or bad players more often that team might not make it out the playoffs.

It's not like sports. The designers saying something after the fact is them rewriting memories. Sometimes you rewrite it exactly how it happened, and other times you change your it because your perspectives have changed. In other words, it doesn't matter what the designers say about it now, what matters is what they said about it when they were actually testing and playing the game.

Isn't it a bit odd that they managed to play in a weekly game at work, play in a weekly game at home, and play sometimes for large audiences, and it all worked just fine? But now, as they reflect on it, it doesn't?

If you dislike it, you are free to change it however you see fit. It is the beauty of the game. But to say that this would have tanked the entire game is not an accurate statement. I doubt it would have even moved the needle, as there was too large of a confluence of forces that made the game as large as what it was, and still is.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not like sports. The designers saying something after the fact is them rewriting memories. Sometimes you rewrite it exactly how it happened, and other times you change your it because your perspectives have changed. In other words, it doesn't matter what the designers say about it now, what matters is what they said about it when they were actually testing and playing the game.

Isn't it a bit odd that they managed to play in a weekly game at work, play in a weekly game at home, and play sometimes for large audiences, and it all worked just fine? But now, as they reflect on it, it doesn't?

Because they play differently from the majority of players.

I mean... the 2014 designers thought the 2014 Beastmaster ranger and Wot4E monk were good.

If you dislike it, you are free to change it however you see fit. It is the beauty of the game. But to say that this would have tanked the entire game is not an accurate statement. I doubt it would have even moved the needle, as there was too large of a confluence of forces that made the game as large as what it was, and still is

What I am saying that if the main selling point of 5e was compromised, it might have tanked.

If the math would be starting to jank up at level 2, many people would have not stuck with 5e long and hurt it's sales.

 

[tetrasodium]

S tier and A+ spells arev more of a problem with three saves because you don't need to prepare as many to always target the week save.

The entirety of your post straight up ignores the additional problem caused here by your own hypothetical "if" that you mentioned where spells need to be designed targeting all six saves under a six save system. That means either creating a bunch more spells allowing players a wider selection to pluck top tier spells and only top tier spells from --OR-- it results in a bunch of worthless spells targeting other saves that obviously go unprepared and the whole "if" collapses immediately into pixie dust.

Going beyond that I'm not going to rehash from square one the discussion over how ivory tower monsters like the example dragon hill giant chain from et. al use those three saves combined with sr the spells that actually existed gm tools detailed st the time and positive pressure for players to choose different spells. We covered that earlier

If I only have to worry about fortitude reflex and will, I only need to prepare one strong fortitude control spell, one strong reflex control spell, and one strong will control spell. Throw in a spell that bypasses spell resistance and your whole control kit is for four spells.

Uhh... No.... What system of d20 extreme conversion are you talking about? You don't seem to be talking about any edition of d&d anymore. Spellcasters can only prepare spells that actually exist, what you are describing wasn't actually a problem. Instead it's an example of why random 3pp solatvooks players bring to the table got reviewed with a heavy dose of skepticality before anything from it was given gm blessing. I made a post earlier showing a bunch of control &save or suck/lose spells along with their SR yes/no status and the save they targeted.

With six saves, that minimum amount of spells needed to hit every target is now Seven.

The 2024 Balor has Magic Resistance

STR26+8+8
DEX15+2+2
CON22+6+12
INT20+5+5
WIS16+3+9
CHA22+6+6

Meaning that you have to prep a dexterity spell to damage him and intelligence spell to control him.

1. Stick with six saving throws
2. Give every legendary monster Proficiency with at least 3 saving throws.
3. Give every legendary monster either
   1. Magic Resistance
   2. 1 addition saving throw Proficiency
   3. A whole mess of condition immunity

5e is static because of paranoia.
Really opportunity attack from Monsters don't deal that much damage. And melee characters tend to have crazy high ACs anyway.

3e actually was static because Full Attack and TWF were full round actions. You lost one to three attacks if you moved more than 5 ft.

This ignores the fact that monsters tend to have multiple useless because 6 saves is too many. The spell doesn't need to target the most useless of a monster's weak save it it has multiple useless saves

 

[Minigiant]

The entirety of your post straight up ignores the additional problem caused here by your own hypothetical "if" that you mentioned where spells need to be designed targeting all six saves under a six save system. That means either creating a bunch more spells allowing players a wider selection to pluck top tier spells and only top tier spells from --OR-- it results in a bunch of worthless spells targeting other saves that obviously go unprepared and the whole "if" collapses immediately into pixie dust.

IMHO many existing spells target the wrong save.

A lot of spells are just simply wisdom says because they are magical.

Spells that are purely mental attacks really should be intelligence saves.

Charms should be Charisma says because they are targeting your personality.

Uhh... No.... What system of d20 extreme conversion are you talking about? You don't seem to be talking about any edition of d&d anymore. Spellcasters can only prepare spells that actually exist, what you are describing wasn't actually a problem. Instead it's an example of why random 3pp solatvooks players bring to the table got reviewed with a heavy dose of skepticality before anything from it was given gm blessing. I made a post earlier showing a bunch of control &save or suck/lose spells along with their SR yes/no status and the save they targeted.

I think this is the source of the confusion.

Many people are suggesting taking the current group of spells that we have annd current 5e version of magic and reverting to the 3E version of saving throws.

Taking all of 5e's spells, reverting to Fort/Ref/Will and not sprinkling SR for SR checks all over the MM.

That's a bad idea. Because no one but you and I are talking about bringing back touch attacks and spell resistance checks.

3 saving throws without SR and spell attacks? Disaster waiting to happen.

This ignores the fact that monsters tend to have multiple useless because 6 saves is too many. The spell doesn't need to target the most useless of a monster's weak save it it has multiple useless saves

The 2014 ones did because they were oversimplified. Few monsters had proficiency.

The 2024 ones don't because most of the updated monsters got saving throw proficiency.

 

[Zardnaar]

IMHO many existing spells target the wrong save.

A lot of spells are just simply wisdom says because they are magical.

Spells that are purely mental attacks really should be intelligence saves.

Charms should be Charisma says because they are targeting your personality.



I think this is the source of the confusion.

Many people are suggesting taking the current group of spells that we have annd current 5e version of magic and reverting to the 3E version of saving throws.

Taking all of 5e's spells, reverting to Fort/Ref/Will and not sprinkling SR for SR checks all over the MM.

That's a bad idea. Because no one but you and I are talking about bringing back touch attacks and spell resistance checks.

3 saving throws without SR and spell attacks? Disaster waiting to happen.




The 2014 ones did because they were oversimplified. Few monsters had proficiency.

The 2024 ones don't because most of the updated monsters got saving throw proficiency.

Ive mentioned SR and MR more tgan once.

And I was the one who pointed out greater magic resistance earlier. I quite like the mechanic. Its only on one creature. I'm happy to nukes control spells into the ground tbh.

Fine on mooks, bosses not so much.

 

[Minigiant]

Ive mentioned SR and MR more tgan once.

And I was the one who pointed out greater magic resistance earlier. I quite like the mechanic. Its only on one creature. I'm happy to nukes control spells into the ground tbh.

Fine on mooks, bosses not so much.

I'm sorry
Yes you did mention SR, MR, & GMR @Zardnaar.

I'd love a whole lotta of Resistances: Spell, Magic, Greater Magic, Athletic, Ward runes, Psychic Defences, etc.

I just think 5e oversimplified a lot and opened up problems.