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

[AnotherGuy]

Thanks for being so very informative.

I stand by my non informative statement

 

[AnotherGuy]

Oh man, i am getting nostalgic for 4E. Epic Destinies were surprisingly simple constructs and yet really worked well to sell their narrative and make you feel Epic.

Yeah fully agree. I have quite the appreciation for how the tiered system worked in 4e, how the progressive engine catered for that (including the use of minions) and its why I favour a system where the first few levels of 5e get traded out (when at high level) for passive benefits to accentuate something similar for 5e. That and it also reduces the clutter on the character sheet.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think 4e D&D rewards skilful, intelligent players at all tiers of play, in a least two ways: skill and intelligence are needed to achieve the benefits of cooperation and synergies in combat situations; and skill and intelligence (and also imagination) are needed to fully engage with the fiction (via p 42 as the resolution guidelines), both in and out of combat.

Here's an example of the latter, from upper Epic tier:
This is the sort of thing that of course will play differently at different tables, But because 4e has a consistent, coherent framework for establishing costs (action economy, recovery or non-recovery of abilities within a common resource suite, sacrificing permanent items (or item-equivalent effects), etc) and DCs (the DC by level table); and because the fiction of tiers is pretty clear and other parts of the game (like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies) reinforce that fiction, meaning that appropriate effects are also reasonably identifiable; the game facilitates rather than impedes a particular table reaching a consensus about how something like sealing the Abyss can, mechanically, be done.

One thing I like about them is that they are express ("in your face"). The PC is a demigod, or one of the Raven Queen's chief marshals, or - in the case of the chaos sorcerer PC in my play excerpt - an Emergent Primordial.

An emergent primordial can do more than just hang out at the tavern waiting for quests. They're the sort of being that might seal the Abyss!

This was great -= thanks for sharing.
I assume that because grid movement was not a concern at it seems in the above play example you allowed leeway with how much area was covered via the move action?

 

[tetrasodium]

How can we say control spells are ruining 5E if we can't figure out what an unruined 5E looks like???

The OP wasn't exactly accurate with what mearls wrote. It was more of a well deserved thumping of an ugly hack that replaced something more elegant but more complex in past editions than a barb directed at control spells.

 

[pemerton]

This was great.
I assume that because grid movement was not a concern at it seems in the above play example you allowed leeway with how much area was covered via the move action?

In the sealing of the Abyss, movement by the characters was being measured on the grid, in accordance with the movement rules. But the expansion of the zone by way of the Arcana check and use of the Stretch Spell ability was not being tracked on the grid - this was a layer-wide effect.

In terms of how it fits into the rules, here are the relevant passages from the rulebooks:

From DMG pp 42, 72, 74:

Actions the Rules Don’t Cover
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.

Use the “DM’s Best Friend”: This simple guideline helps you adjudicate any unusual situation: An especially favorable circumstance gives a +2 bonus to a check or an attack roll (or it gives combat advantage). A particularly unfavorable circumstance gives a –2 penalty.

Cast the Action as a Check: If a character tries an action that might fail, use a check to resolve it. To do that, you need to know what kind of check it is and what the DC is. . . .

The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions. . . .

It’s also a good idea to think about other options the characters might exercise and how these might influence the course of the challenge. Characters might have access to utility powers or rituals that can help them. These might allow special uses of skills, perhaps with a bonus.


From PHB p 259:

In a skill challenge, your goal is to accumulate a certain number of successful skill checks before rolling too many failures. Powers you use might give you bonuses on your checks, make some checks unnecessary, or otherwise help you through the challenge. . . .
Chapter 5 describes the sorts of things you can attempt with your skills in a skill challenge. . . . You might also use combat powers
and ability checks.​

You can see from the example how we interpreted and applied these rules at the table: for instance, in this climactic moment for the Drow, who from the beginning of play has had the goal of liberating the Drow from Lolth's rule, big sacrifices - like permanently expending powers, so that they are not recovered on a rest - can generate big effects.

 

[nevin]

Fix was in 4E and pre 3E.

Scaling defenses.

How in the 9 hells of Baator did they miss that one?

I generally like what Mike writes about but sheesh.

Probably cant remove them because tradition but have saves scale faster than DCs.

Make spellcasters debuff to land them or revert to direct damage or buffing instead.

Depends on a few things. Vs hold monster
2E T-Rex. Saves 75% of the time.
5E Trex. Fails 75% of the time.

Approximately.

Tradition? 3E was the odd one out. When they designed 5E.

and magic resistance scaled based on level once upon a time. If you tried to use magic on a creature with SR and your chance scaled 5% per level you were above or below it. There were also creatures like 1st Edition Daemons that Mages feared because thier SR was absolute regardless of your level. The problem with magic is more fundamental than controlling spells. We had an arms race in 1e and 2e where new abilities created way too much damage. Then we decided a mage losing thier spell if they took damage was too much, Then we started capping damage, then we added new spells and new spells and new spells to give everybody something and way too many of them aren't balanced. The current spell lists are the end result of 40 years of patch, redo patch redo and it's bad in a lot of ways. Some spells just shouldn't exist. A lot of them should only be rituals, some of them shouldn't be possible without divine approval or some mythical spell components.. (ressurection, miracle, wish to start a very long list.)

The entire spells list needs to be junked and redone. I don't envy them that job. they will have to slay or modify many sacred cows to fix it. I suspect that's why they keep tinkering around the edges Patching the old clunky broken system.

 

[ECMO3]

Okay, that's not exactly what @mearls said. But here's an excerpt from the latest post on his Patreon.

Legendary resistance is a cheap hack, jammed into 5e because we didn't have a better solution to the broken control spells that we had to include in the game for tradition's sake.

How's that for an intro?

As incendiary as the statement might be, it's fundamentally true. D&D changed over the years, but its content remained the same. The spells that give DMs headaches today had counters in AD&D when they were first released. As the game shifted over time, those spells retained their core functionality while monsters lost their defenses against them.

It's an interesting post and worth a complete read.

What's your opinion on control spells and legendary resistance?

I read it. I am not sure I agree with the central premise though. I do agree it is easier to land a control spell in 5E, for the reasons he mentions, especially at low level.

On the other hand control spells in 5E are generally weaker and offer save every turn mechanic and concentration mechanic that did not exist in AD&D. In AD&D if a monster failed a save against Hold Monster they were paralyzed for a minimum of 9 rounds. That is it, no save every turn, no breaking the Wizard's concentration to be free. Another bad guy could kill the caster and the paralyzed guy would stay paralyzed until the spell ran its course. Fail a save against Polymorph other and it is permanent until dispeled. To make matters worse there is a chance you flat die from the polymorph process (or the return if it is dispelled) and a chance you lose your personality and identity.

 

[Minigiant]

I read it. I am not sure I agree with the central premise though. I do agree it is easier to land a control spell in 5E, for the reasons he mentions, especially at low level.

On the other hand control spells in 5E are generally weaker and offer save every turn mechanic and concentration mechanic that did not exist in AD&D. In AD&D if a monster failed a save against Hold Monster they were paralyzed for a minimum of 9 rounds. That is it, no save every turn, no breaking the Wizard's concentration to be free. Another bad guy could kill the caster and the paralyzed guy would stay paralyzed until the spell ran its course. Fail a save against Polymorph other and it is permanent until dispeled. To make matters worse there is a chance you flat die from the polymorph process (or the return if it is dispelled) and a chance you lose your personality and identity.

I think the central premise as that it's easier to land control spells in 5e AND it gets easier as you level.

Whereas in AD&D, you chance of landing spells for worse as you leveled, your ability to boost that was severely limited, you had to prepare them to slots, and bosses tended to be higher HD for better saves. So spells vs "bosses" were hail maries if they weren't immune.

 

[Maxperson]

I read it. I am not sure I agree with the central premise though. I do agree it is easier to land a control spell in 5E, for the reasons he mentions, especially at low level.

On the other hand control spells in 5E are generally weaker and offer save every turn mechanic and concentration mechanic that did not exist in AD&D. In AD&D if a monster failed a save against Hold Monster they were paralyzed for a minimum of 9 rounds. That is it, no save every turn, no breaking the Wizard's concentration to be free. Another bad guy could kill the caster and the paralyzed guy would stay paralyzed until the spell ran its course. Fail a save against Polymorph other and it is permanent until dispeled. To make matters worse there is a chance you flat die from the polymorph process (or the return if it is dispelled) and a chance you lose your personality and identity.

With 5e, though, even a round of inaction can spell quick doom. Two rounds and it's over. 5e has a very different combat balance than AD&D did.

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D if a monster failed a save against Hold Monster they were paralyzed for a minimum of 9 rounds. That is it, no save every turn, no breaking the Wizard's concentration to be free. Another bad guy could kill the caster and the paralyzed guy would stay paralyzed until the spell ran its course. Fail a save against Polymorph other and it is permanent until dispeled. To make matters worse there is a chance you flat die from the polymorph process (or the return if it is dispelled) and a chance you lose your personality and identity.

All true, and that's just how I like it. Those hazards you note re Poly Other were an excellent deterrent to casting it on your allies, and it's the removal of that deterrent that broke Polymorph.

The price for this high degree of potential effectivesness is that in 1e there's no at-wills and you're fairly harshly limited in how many spells you can cast in a day; and you're also much easier to interrupt. 3e pretty much removed interruptability in two ways: every caster ever took Combat Casting as a feat, and most spells no longer took any in-game time to cast; thus casters quickly - and not at all surprisingly - came to rule the roost.