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

[FrogReaver]

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.

So what if the caster has to prepare more spells to target a weak save?

• If weak saves are that much weaker he's going to find a spell to target each save and the problem still remains...
• If the saves are close enough that a caster doesn't need to specialize in spells targeting each ( say for any given monster it's saves are all within 1 or 2 points), then having 6 saves vs 3 isn't going to matter.

Your justification for needing 6 saves seems to fall apart to me if you just fix the saves.

 

[FrogReaver]

Does anyone know what the average AC for a level 1 monster is? What about for a level 20 monster?

I'm willing to bet that enemy AC increases at least as fast as your PB+mod.

So level 1 you get +5. Level 11 you get +11. That's a difference of 6.
Level 1 enemy AC is maybe 13 (just guessing). Level 20 AC is maybe 20. That'd be a difference of 7.

Thus, you don't really get any better at landing attacks against at level enemies. Why the heck should casters get better at landing spells against at level enemies.

 

[Zardnaar]

Does anyone know what the average AC for a level 1 monster is? What about for a level 20 monster?

I'm willing to bet that enemy AC increases at least as fast as your PB+mod.

So level 1 you get +5. Level 11 you get +11. That's a difference of 6.
Level 1 enemy AC is maybe 13 (just guessing). Level 20 AC is maybe 20. That'd be a difference of 7.

Thus, you don't really get any better at landing attacks against at level enemies. Why the heck should casters get better at landing spells against at level enemies.

5.0 it was 14.5 iirc

Not sure if 5.5 is higher. If it is its not by much. Not much had an AC over 19 and I used Marilith, Balors and an adult black dragon.

 

[Staffan]

Which is completely unlike 5e, at least for literally 100% of games I've played. Even the actually good 5e GM I have does not disclose HP totals until it's of the form "agh, it has ONE hit point left!!" or the like.

Technically, I don't believe 13A has fully open hit points. What is supposed to happen is something like:
"Can I cast hold monster on the owlbear?"
"Sorry, it has too many hit points remaining."
"OK, then I'll cast acid arrow instead."

Also, looking at the hp values compared to the thresholds, it's mostly going to be an issue with Large/Huge (or double-/triple-strength) monsters, or monsters that are way higher than your own level – in other words, bosses/solos. As an example, a 3rd-level confusion or rebuke (moderate debuffs) have hp thresholds of 100, and hold monster (freezes a monster in place but doesn't paralyze them) of 60. Comparing these to typical monster hp, 60 hp is enough to affect a 4th level monster, and 100 all the way up to 6th. When used on a large/double-strength creature, 60 hp is only enough to affect a 1st level monster, and 100 a 3rd-level; and on a huge/triple-strength one they only hit level 0 and 1.

This means that in general, debuffs of this type work great as crowd control, or a way to turn a big fight into two smaller fights. So a typical level 3 battle with 4 PCs might have 2 gnoll savages (level 3, 42 hp), a gnoll ranger (level 3, 46 hp), and a gnoll warleader (level 4, 56 hp). Any of these is fair game for a hold monster – it might be best used on the warleader, as the others have ranged attacks. But if you're instead fighting two ogres (large level 3, 90 hp), the hold monster won't work unless you wear them down first.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

People wouldnt accept a 6R yet.

5.5 is a cheeseburger with extra onions. I'm expecting them to sell less. Could be wrong. Eventually people will want a steak and egg burger (or whatever) but not a pizza or cheeseburger flavored pizza (they exist btw).

Other problem is D&D beyond infrastructure. A radically new edition woukd require a rebuild (probably).

Playerbase isnt there yet.

I'm aware it isn't there yet.

My point is that 5.5e, as it exists, cannot pivot to being there when "yet" arrives.

I'm "bearish" on 5.5e. I expect it to survive about four years from initial publication (so ~2028) before we start hearing rumors of the new edition. If they arrive earlier, that's a pretty damning point for 5e in general, not just 5.5. I'm aware you're more bullish, and expect on the order of 6-7 year (so 2030-2031), but we really aren't that far apart on it. I've been saying, ever since the stupid "One D&D" name was announced, that this wouldn't last anywhere near as long as 5.0 did, because that's the nature of revised editions, they just don't have the staying power even if they're significantly improved (and unlike with 3.0, there's extensive debate about whether it actually has improved).

 

[Distracted DM]

Which is completely unlike 5e, at least for literally 100% of games I've played. Even the actually good 5e GM I have does not disclose HP totals until it's of the form "agh, it has ONE hit point left!!" or the like.

I like saying things are Bloodied at half. It also has mechanical effects with A5E (and some other 5e iterations, I think).
If players were to track how much damage they'd done so far, and they know when it's bloodied, they can roughly figure out the HP.. we did track damage dealt as players back in the day, but now I just tell players when it's bloodied, and roughly how much damage they've done so far.

I also have, on Foundry, a module that shows the Baldur's Gate 1/2 "unharmed, injured, badly injured, near death" 25% increments.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Technically, I don't believe 13A has fully open hit points. What is supposed to happen is something like:
"Can I cast hold monster on the owlbear?"
"Sorry, it has too many hit points remaining."
"OK, then I'll cast acid arrow instead."

Frankly, whether this is or isn't done in 13A official rules is kind of irrelevant to my argument. I've never--not once, ever--in 12+ years of playing 5e, had a GM who even did what you describe here. Never.

You use your spell. You'd better hope you waited long enough.

At least with Hussar's group there's a loose way to tell because we use a virtual tabletop, which shows the HP bar depleting. If you've kept loose track of how much damage something has taken, you can make at least an educated guess. But in any gam not on a VTT? 5e GMs, in literally every single experience I've ever had, will not tell you anything useful about a target's HP. Not even whether or not an HP-threshold-based spell will in fact work.

Though, knowing Hussar, he would probably let you have a Perception roll to check. High result, you can know for sure if it will work or not. Low, you have no idea.

Also, looking at the hp values compared to the thresholds, it's mostly going to be an issue with Large/Huge (or double-/triple-strength) monsters, or monsters that are way higher than your own level – in other words, bosses/solos. As an example, a 3rd-level confusion or rebuke (moderate debuffs) have hp thresholds of 100, and hold monster (freezes a monster in place but doesn't paralyze them) of 60. Comparing these to typical monster hp, 60 hp is enough to affect a 4th level monster, and 100 all the way up to 6th. When used on a large/double-strength creature, 60 hp is only enough to affect a 1st level monster, and 100 a 3rd-level; and on a huge/triple-strength one they only hit level 0 and 1.

This means that in general, debuffs of this type work great as crowd control, or a way to turn a big fight into two smaller fights. So a typical level 3 battle with 4 PCs might have 2 gnoll savages (level 3, 42 hp), a gnoll ranger (level 3, 46 hp), and a gnoll warleader (level 4, 56 hp). Any of these is fair game for a hold monster – it might be best used on the warleader, as the others have ranged attacks. But if you're instead fighting two ogres (large level 3, 90 hp), the hold monster won't work unless you wear them down first.

Fair enough, but I still argue that, even though it does use this mechanic, it's still clearly superior as both a tactical experience and getting the player invested into the process of fighting a tough fight. It both pushes people toward specific things, and means that you sometimes have to "take what you can get" rather than getting optimal results or nothing (like saving fireball for later, knowing that that might mean doing some damage to your party when everyone's in the scrum....or using it now, but knowing it might do almost nothing).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I like saying things are Bloodied at half. It also has mechanical effects with A5E (and some other 5e iterations, I think).
If players were to track how much damage they'd done so far, and they know when it's bloodied, they can roughly figure out the HP.. we did track damage dealt as players back in the day, but now I just tell players when it's bloodied, and roughly how much damage they've done so far.

I also have, on Foundry, a module that shows the Baldur's Gate 1/2 "unharmed, injured, badly injured, near death" 25% increments.

It still baffles me that they removed Bloodied from 5.0. Like...I know it's got 4e cooties on it, but it's useful. Like it's legitimately one of the most useful, and more importantly SIMPLE, mechanics to come out of 4e. You'd think if they kept anything, it'd be that and the way 4e did critical hits, but nope! Stinks too much of 4e, can't be used.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm aware it isn't there yet.

My point is that 5.5e, as it exists, cannot pivot to being there when "yet" arrives.

I'm "bearish" on 5.5e. I expect it to survive about four years from initial publication (so ~2028) before we start hearing rumors of the new edition. If they arrive earlier, that's a pretty damning point for 5e in general, not just 5.5. I'm aware you're more bullish, and expect on the order of 6-7 year (so 2030-2031), but we really aren't that far apart on it. I've been saying, ever since the stupid "One D&D" name was announced, that this wouldn't last anywhere near as long as 5.0 did, because that's the nature of revised editions, they just don't have the staying power even if they're significantly improved (and unlike with 3.0, there's extensive debate about whether it actually has improved).

If 5.5 came out 2014 I would probably be saying its one of the greatest editions ever.

But it didnt. They're getting close. Theres enough there one could use it to duplicate 3E, 4E or a modern simple system like Shadowdark if one was willing to do extensive rewrites.

Like 2E backwards compatibility gimped them. BUT I agree with why they did it. What Zard wants and what Zard would do if he was grand high poobah at WotC are two different things.
. But yeah if 6E or 5.75 credible rumors start circulating 2027/8 it will say a lot. I'm not expecting them that early but wouldn't be surprised. No one likes WotC atm.

 

[Staffan]

Frankly, whether this is or isn't done in 13A official rules is kind of irrelevant to my argument. I've never--not once, ever--in 12+ years of playing 5e, had a GM who even did what you describe here. Never.

You use your spell. You'd better hope you waited long enough.

I mean, sure. If your GM isn't going to play along with the RAW and RAI (and this is explicitly stated in the 13A rules, see below), the rules aren't going to work as intended. That's hardly something that can be blamed on the rules, though – it's firmly a PEBSAC issue.