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

[Maxperson]

Vol 5.

I also remember another system where you only checked % if you rolled a 20 or a 1, i.e. a confirmation roll. we didn't like that system because it sucked to roll a nat 20 and then not confirm it.

Yeah. We didn't like 3e's system of confirmation as it stood, either. So if you rolled a 20 and didn't confirm, you did max damage for the normal hit. That way it was still boosted by the 20. Also, if you did confirm it was base weapon damage + max, instead of rolling base weapon damage twice, that way a crit was strictly better than a normal hit. Nothing was worse than rolling two 1's on that d8 for the longsword crit and seeing a crit be a quarter of the max damage from a normal hit.

 

[SkidAce]

Yeah. We didn't like 3e's system of confirmation as it stood, either. So if you rolled a 20 and didn't confirm, you did max damage for the normal hit. That way it was still boosted by the 20. Also, if you did confirm it was base weapon damage + max, instead of rolling base weapon damage twice, that way a crit was strictly better than a normal hit. Nothing was worse than rolling two 1's on that d8 for the longsword crit and seeing a crit by a quarter of the max damage from a normal hit.

We tried solving the "low damage" crit roll by having a rider on crits, like a wound system, so you always got some special effect.

But I dont remember the details, and dont have the time to look through a filing cabinet of actual typed notes.

 

[Upper_Krust]

given that most adventures end around level 12, that does not appear to be an issue

Tell that to the marketing department.

 

[tetrasodium]

Tell that to the marketing department.

Gestalt

 

[Marc17]

In doing those things, you precipitate having to rewrite:

• How attacks work, how much damage they do, and how much HP creatures have
• Functionally all spells that negatively affect enemies
• Any actions dependent on the above things, e.g. spell-like abilities, or special attack stuff like Bull Rush
• At least to some degree the action economy
• The classes which use the above elements, since they work so differently

At which point, you've functionally rebuilt the whole game, mechanically speaking. You can't replace the building's foundation while keeping the building above it perfectly the same.

Naw, I see it as keeping the foundation and retrofitting the house above. Ascending AC from 2E is purely cosmetic. So are saves if you say all saves succeed on DC20 and covert the charts to bonuses (before you start making other changes). Even combined XP chart, most classes except for thieves were functionally level equivalent and the changes from old charts would give indication where tweaks might be needed. There's an argument for giving high str scores to large monsters, but otherwise no reason any of them have to have non-average stats as that is all taken into account with HD. Haven't even addressed adding feats and skills into the 2E system but those pretty much needed to be rethought anyway. I have all my work and notes on the subject saved to a folder called "YetAnotherFantasyHeartbreaker" on my computer.

 

[Zardnaar]

Though there is the everpresent chicken-and-the-egg issue there. Or, I guess, more farmer-and-field. A field doesn't grow if the farmer doesn't tend it, regardless of whether it is fertile. The farmer doesn't tend a field he doesn't think will grow in the first place. So...is it that the fields would never grow anyway, and the farmer is wisely ignoring them? Or is it that the fields are fine, and the land lays fallow because the farmer is insufficiently motivated to tend them?

The made stuff for higher level. Didn't sell. Whole product line CMI part of BECMI. B part sold like gangbusters. E part sold well then nope. Product exists its obscure these days.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/17165/d-d-companion-set-becmi-ed-basic

They sold "fine".

You can use tiamat etc with 10 levels. You just have to adjust. D&D used to be essentially 10 levels and killing lolth was definitely doable.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, several ways. One problem that cropped up very early was the lack of delta between the totally clueless rube and the absolute master. IIRC, a completely untrained commoner had something like a 25% chance to Bluff Asmodeus himself, while the most proficient master (Expertise, maxed Cha), acting solely on her own abilities without supernatural aid...still had a 25% or 20% chance to fail, something like that.

Agreed, that's too flat.

That said, and this is where lack of granularity rears its ugly head, I prefer there always be a tiny chance of success or failure no matter what. Here, that rube should have a 1% or even just 0.1% chance of bluffing Asmodeus - but the system as written doesn't allow that, it's either 5% or zero. Flip side, no matter how good you are at something there's no such thing as perfection, reflected as a chance of mechanical failure again smaller than the non-granular d20 will allow.

Bell curves are better when they have long tails.

A second problem I cited before the game was even published was the rampant over-use of Advantage and Disadvantage.

Completely agree. It's the same issue as 3e had with the d20 - trying way too hard to shoehorn everything into a unified mechanic rather than using bespoke mechanics in situations where they just work better.

A third way is, well, as folks have just been saying in this thread, fighting the same enemies for 6, 8, 10 levels? Where your numbers improved by a nearly-imperceptible 1-3 points? That no longer feels like being on a treadmill--it feels like standing still. At least the treadmill gave the feeling of motion! 5e, both versions, give the feeling of not really getting anywhere. And why shouldn't they feel so? Most games end before 12th level. You'll be able to increase one ability score (edit: I meant "modifier") by two points, and your Proficiency bonus will increase by...two points. Meaning, the things you're supposed to be utterly amazing at doing...you're all of +4 better at. Not even as much impact as Advantage (equiv. to +5 on average), which is handed out like candy.

This I don't mind so much. The opposite is 3e, where a given creature would only be a viable opponent for a window of about 2 character levels, before which the PCs wouldn't have a chance against it and after which the PCs wouldn't even work up a sweat.

I'd rather that "viable opponent" window be considerably wider, which requires some combination of a) flattening the power curve and b) making combats swingier so as to increase the chance of upsets (either way).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Agreed, that's too flat.

That said, and this is where lack of granularity rears its ugly head, I prefer there always be a tiny chance of success or failure no matter what. Here, that rube should have a 1% or even just 0.1% chance of bluffing Asmodeus - but the system as written doesn't allow that, it's either 5% or zero. Flip side, no matter how good you are at something there's no such thing as perfection, reflected as a chance of mechanical failure again smaller than the non-granular d20 will allow.

Bell curves are better when they have long tails.

Completely agree. It's the same issue as 3e had with the d20 - trying way too hard to shoehorn everything into a unified mechanic rather than using bespoke mechanics in situations where they just work better.

This I don't mind so much. The opposite is 3e, where a given creature would only be a viable opponent for a window of about 2 character levels, before which the PCs wouldn't have a chance against it and after which the PCs wouldn't even work up a sweat.

I'd rather that "viable opponent" window be considerably wider, which requires some combination of a) flattening the power curve and b) making combats swingier so as to increase the chance of upsets (either way).

I'm sure you would rather that.

I'm even more sure that it isn't gonna happen. Folks are already souring on what 5e's designers sold them on this front. "No no, if we just do it even more, then people will LOVE it!" is not and has never been a successful policy argument.

Also, you mischaracterize 3e. I have little love for 3e as a mechanical system, so I assure you that a window of only two levels is simply not accurate.

The only reason you'd have windows like that is because of the horrible, horrible, horrible spellcasting stuff that would make a creature only really viable as long as you had access to the right spell level. In terms of AC and such, the range is far broader, in part because of the design behind 3e's (very stupid) "iterative attacks" thing.

Certainly, I can say 4e was verifiably much better than that. The 4e rules explicitly instruct the GM to vary typical combats in at least a 5 level range (roughly party level ±2), and further, that the GM should include combats that are as much as 8 levels above or below the party, because routing your enemies every now and then feels really good, and getting routed every now and then reminds the party that they aren't invincible. When added to the natural variation that arises from luck, you get just the right feeling of the world being challenging but worth tackling, as opposed to forbidding or forgettable.

 

[Minigiant]

Everyday I slowly swing to 2 statements on D&D

1)
Attack rolls, Saving throws, and Skill Checks should all be a roll of d20s.

And

2)
The calculation for Attack rolls, Saving throws, and Skill Checks on the d20 side and DC side should not look anyway similar to each other.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Everyday I slowly swing to 2 statements on D&D

1)
Attack rolls, Saving throws, and Skill Checks should all be a roll of d20s.

And

2)
The calculation for Attack rolls, Saving throws, and Skill Checks on the d20 side and DC side should not look anyway similar to each other.

What are the advantages and disadvantages to making four completely different mechanics for action resolution?