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

[tetrasodium]

The user can be as skilled as you like but if the gun itself is unreliable all that skill ain't gonna help.

Very much agree. The failure to provide a sidebar cutout option that strips at will cantrips and replaces them with something else no longer unlimited at will auto scaling by character level after so many years is incredibly frustrating. I'm tired of the accusations faced from being sandwiched between ignored problems dismissed with "we did this to make it easy do you could homebrew it" and players outraged by blatant nerfs on PC's that are overtuned by design

 

[Lanefan]

So every military professional working with a gun 150 years ago was getting a misfire about once every twelve seconds, causing an outright explosion which injured themselves and their allies every 24 seconds?

Really, Lanefan? Really?

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is not realistic. It is not how learning to use a gun works. You can, in fact, mitigate sources of misfire by learning to use it better. Which is what being Gunslinger 16+ means: you are one of the most skilled gunslingers to ever live.

Were it me, after 16+ levels* of getting blown up on a regular basis I'd probably decide Gunslinger is not the trade for me and pick up a bow instead.

And no, it's not realistic; it's a gamist construct put in to limit the effectiveness and-or appeal of firearms, which - as real-world history clearly shows - otherwise would soon render all other forms of combat moot: the person or side with the (bigger) guns wins.

* - or, more likely, considerably fewer than 16.....

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Were it me, after 16+ levels* of getting blown up on a regular basis I'd probably decide Gunslinger is not the trade for me and pick up a bow instead.

And no, it's not realistic; it's a gamist construct put in to limit the effectiveness and-or appeal of firearms, which - as real-world history clearly shows - otherwise would soon render all other forms of combat moot: the person or side with the (bigger) guns wins.

* - or, more likely, considerably fewer than 16.....

...
The firearms are already designed to not be better, Lanefan.

They are just different from regular weapons. They aren't better. A pistol is 1d8 damage, only 20 ft range, criticals do x3 damage instead of x2 damage. That's it. A regular pistol is identical in stats to a longbow...except it's vastly more expensive and has only 1/5th the range and might explode when you use it.

 

[SkidAce]

So every military professional working with a gun 150 years ago was getting a misfire about once every twelve seconds, causing an outright explosion which injured themselves and their allies every 24 seconds?

Really, Lanefan? Really?

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is not realistic. It is not how learning to use a gun works. You can, in fact, mitigate sources of misfire by learning to use it better. Which is what being Gunslinger 16+ means: you are one of the most skilled gunslingers to ever live.

The more often I fired the M60 in the military the more often it jammed.

My skill and aptitude with the weapon can increase, but the quality of the weapon is static. (aside from proper maintenance of course)

This issue of misfires is really only used for primitive firearms, to create the "inherent risk" of using unstable technology. That why we don't have "misfires" for swords and bows and hammers, etc.

Hence, firearms are mainly goblin inventions in my world, cause they don't care, they like the "Boom!"

 

[Zardnaar]

I absolutely 100% complain about crit fumble tables.

If all nat 1 does is miss, I could not care less.

Misfire breaks the weapon, and a second misfire MAKES IT EXPLODE.

That should not be happening four times as fast when you have become one of the greatest gubslingers alive.

Gunslinger concept fairly stupid in D&D games unless you have revolvers or magical equivalent.

Pathfinder one was also silly. Iirc it was also ranged touch attacks.

Its just easier to not have them.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The whole point of bounded accuracy is that +x items could be a nice boon to the player (snip)

That's incorrect. That was not the point of BA.

 

[AnotherGuy]

If 5e had scrapped basic + magic weapons, every DM and their little dog would have immediately added them back in. Net result: the same as current.

Make x adjustment to monsters when utilizing +x weapons and armour. Simple and effective.
Was it done. No.

I suspect the bigger flaws might have been a combination of over-reliance on bounded accuracy (5e-specific) and trying to tighten down the math too much (all WotC editions).

BA works. The flaw was not adhering to it.

In TSR-era D&D with its much looser math, going from a +0 sword to a +1 to a +2 doesn't really make all that much difference, other than becoming able to hit some specific creatures that require magic to hit, but it makes the player happy.

Terrible comparison.
In 5e the player already starts with a +3 which eventually becomes a +5 from ability modifiers. You add a +1 or +2 from the magic weapons and then a proficiency bonus...if you're using a bow the fighting style and its sharpshooter feat ignoring cover....you're only really rolling to determine if it's a crit or not.

So one way to make the plus equipment work for the game is to reduce the bonuses from ability modifiers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's incorrect. That was not the point of BA.

In fairness to them, 5e's designers never actually settled on what BA was about, and that was one of the (many) things they claimed it was about.

BA works. The flaw was not adhering to it.

Depends on what one is looking for.

Personally, I think it has a kernel or two of good idea, but it was taken way too far.

 

[Zardnaar]

In fairness to them, 5e's designers never actually settled on what BA was about, and that was one of the (many) things they claimed it was about.


Depends on what one is looking for.

Personally, I think it has a kernel or two of good idea, but it was taken way too far.

Personally I would stretch it a bit. Add prof bonus or level to all saves.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd prefer upcasting remain, rather than the old as-you-level-the-spell-levels-too. It's just that leveled spells, as a limited resource should do more damage than they do now. Cantrip damage isn't too terribly bad, but that 8d6 fireball (28 ave.) at 5th level will just barely kill a 2014 bugbear (and not a 2024 one) . Back in older editions, dropping a 5d6 fireball (at 5th level) would kill a ~4 HD monster - basically an ogre (CR 2 nowadays, with 59 hp for the 2014 version and 68 now). Sadly, upleveling as it stands now is just worst as monster HP rapidly outpace spell damage output.

For me, spells should be a vote of "I want to end this monster right now" (or, "let's thin the herd so we can focus on the dangerous stuff"). They're limited resource, and as long as the DM isn't allowing 5MWD, their use should be something the spellcaster only drops after assessing the risk is too great to letting the martials beat it down. Most of the time, I'd rather see the spellcasters using combat cantrips, and only pulling out the "big guns" when things get desperate. But when those big guns go off, it should be noticeable and spectacular - not a drop in the bucket.

It sure feels like that was how 1e-2e handled it, but was lost by time 3E rolled around.