Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9790362" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Wanted to come back to this.</p><p></p><p>4e did not "strip them out for the most part". A lot of the things folks want are in there. They've just been rebuilt to fit into the paradigm of a combat system where "combat" means "set-piece" and attritional stuff is handled in other ways.</p><p></p><p>It's sort of like how a lot of folks <em>claim</em> that 4e removed most utility spells. If you look at rituals...<em>most</em> of the utility spells are in there! And a whole bunch of others were added too! They just now <em>cost attritional resources</em>, rather than being an inherent X-per-day use get-out-of-problem card. Which goes to show another side of the attrition-tension thing [USER=2067]@I'm A Banana[/USER] spoke about: D&D <em>players</em> don't actually have a self-consistent, rational stance on whether they want attrition or not. They want both "fight the dungeon" things <em>and</em> "fight the boss" things. But they don't want any of <em>their own abilities</em> to be on the scale of "fight the dungeon" things--they want those abilities to be available on demand with rapid deployment, precisely the <em>opposite</em> of "fight the dungeon" play. But they want "fight the dungeon" to be just as important as "fight the boss".</p><p></p><p>That thing, right there, is a self-contradictory desire. You cannot have all three of those. It's like asking for a shape with three sides, and three right angles, that exists in a flat, Euclidean plane. You can have any two of those things! But you cannot have all three. Each one individually sounds reasonable (because it is), but collectively they add up to a request for something impossible.</p><p></p><p>I find a significant number of things where folks demand "tradition" despite wanting modern gameplay often move in this direction. E.g. Zardnaar's argument for why a mix of both saves and attacks should be used. <em>Allegedly</em>, we want simplicity and accessibility, but then "players like throwing dice" and this bizarre assertion that saving throws create player agency while attack rolls don't...even though whether the boss attacks you or you roll a saving throw makes <em>no difference</em> in terms of your agency, at all, whatsoever.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9790362, member: 6790260"] Wanted to come back to this. 4e did not "strip them out for the most part". A lot of the things folks want are in there. They've just been rebuilt to fit into the paradigm of a combat system where "combat" means "set-piece" and attritional stuff is handled in other ways. It's sort of like how a lot of folks [I]claim[/I] that 4e removed most utility spells. If you look at rituals...[I]most[/I] of the utility spells are in there! And a whole bunch of others were added too! They just now [I]cost attritional resources[/I], rather than being an inherent X-per-day use get-out-of-problem card. Which goes to show another side of the attrition-tension thing [USER=2067]@I'm A Banana[/USER] spoke about: D&D [I]players[/I] don't actually have a self-consistent, rational stance on whether they want attrition or not. They want both "fight the dungeon" things [I]and[/I] "fight the boss" things. But they don't want any of [I]their own abilities[/I] to be on the scale of "fight the dungeon" things--they want those abilities to be available on demand with rapid deployment, precisely the [I]opposite[/I] of "fight the dungeon" play. But they want "fight the dungeon" to be just as important as "fight the boss". That thing, right there, is a self-contradictory desire. You cannot have all three of those. It's like asking for a shape with three sides, and three right angles, that exists in a flat, Euclidean plane. You can have any two of those things! But you cannot have all three. Each one individually sounds reasonable (because it is), but collectively they add up to a request for something impossible. I find a significant number of things where folks demand "tradition" despite wanting modern gameplay often move in this direction. E.g. Zardnaar's argument for why a mix of both saves and attacks should be used. [I]Allegedly[/I], we want simplicity and accessibility, but then "players like throwing dice" and this bizarre assertion that saving throws create player agency while attack rolls don't...even though whether the boss attacks you or you roll a saving throw makes [I]no difference[/I] in terms of your agency, at all, whatsoever. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition
Top