Mike Mearls Games
patreon
5e Control Spells are Broken
🕑 Added 2025-09-09 12:00:20 +0000 UTCLast week I wrote about blast spells and how they don't do enough damage. Even worse, they don't scale well. This week, let's take a look at control spells.
Imagine we are playing a game. In this game, I can play one card per turn. One of my cards causes you to lose your next turn. That sounds powerful but perhaps niche. I lose a turn to make you lose a turn. You can imagine some situations where that could be powerful. A card might let me start a timer that gives me a significant benefit when it ends, giving me a reason to put the game on pause.
If that card had a chance of working, I risk wasting a turn if it fails to fire off. That sounds even more fair.
Now, imagine that this game is a four-on-one game. One of the four players can use that card. Their single opponent, normally capable of generating enough resources and playing enough cards to threaten the team of four, gets to do nothing for a turn. Does it sound as fair? Does it make sense for one team to risk 25% of their turns to shut down 100% of their enemy' turns?
But let's cut it from another direction. Imagine if I redesigned finger of death into this version, new mechanic underlined:
Finger of Death
Level 7 Necromancy
Casting Time: Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: 10 minutes
You unleash negative energy toward a creature you can see within range. The target makes a Constitution saving throw, taking 7d8 + 30 necrotic damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one.
If the creature failed the saving throw, you target it with this spell again on your next turn without expending a spell slot or action. This benefit applies to the initial casting and all subsequent castings generated by failed saving throws.
A humanoid killed by this spell rises at the start of your next turn as a zombie that follows your verbal orders.
Put simply, control spells that knock out a creature's actions, or that levy significant penalties to their ability to do anything, are far too efficient for their spell slot and action cost. A damage spell that kept zotting a target seems obviously unfair. Why is it OK for a control spell to work that way?
Control spells are legacy code, echoes of design from 50 years ago that made sense in context. AD&D was a deadly game, with save-or-die mechanics embedded throughout the system. Shutting down a monster with a single spell felt fair when that monster could kill a character or two with one action.
Saving throws were also determined by the target, not the caster. A creature might need to roll a 5 or higher to save against any spell, assuming you get through its magic resistance.
Speaking of which, the magic resistance mechanic punished casters, with high level creatures often immune to spells. A wise caster always carried a few buff spells or utility that wasn't vulnerable to magic resistance.
Spell slots were also far more precious. The game's scaling - blast spells dealing one die of damage per caster level - made damage spells a viable competitor to control. Their half damage on a failed save was valuable when creatures had fewer relative hit points and a 75% chance of saving.
5e specifically requires you to fail a saving throw for a control spell to have its full effect. These spells often allow subsequent saves, which is little help if a caster targets a creature's bad save. Did I mention lately that proficiency should apply to all saves in 5e? It's a mistake in the game that it doesn't.
So, what should control look like? I have a simple goal for control spells - I want them to make life tough but not boring. Losing turns is a dead end mechanic. Piling disadvantage on everything just pushes a creature or character into a death spiral where they can't do anything well.
Instead, I want control spells that force interesting tactical choices. I want spells that help guide the encounter according to the caster's script. I also want to make sure that if a spell lasts for multiple rounds there is a cost associated with that to ensure that a caster doesn't end up spending one action to tax the DM for two or more.
Here's a control spell:
Phantasmal Misdirection
Level 2 Illusion
Casting Time: Action
Range: 240 feet
Targets: One creature
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 round
You weave a phantasmic image in a creature's mind, causing one of its foes to seemingly shift and dance about it.
Pick a creature within range. The target has disadvantage on attacks against the chosen creature. If the target's attack misses due to this disadvantage, it immediately resolves the attack again, using its die rolls, as if it had advantage against a target of your choice. The new target must be a legal target for the attack, and you cannot force the creature to target itself. If this attack hits, the spell ends at the end of the current turn.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. The duration increases by 1 round for each spell slot level above 2.
I like this spell for a few reasons:
It forces a tough choice. Presumably you protect a target that a creature wants to go after. It alters a creature's attack plan. Does it take disadvantage, or go after a target that has better defenses or more hit points?
It rewards clever play. Most 5e control spells just shut off a monster, end of story. This one gives disadvantage, but a smart group can find ways to force a creature to risk hitting an ally. You can use other spells or tactics to put the target in position where it can only attack with disadvantage.
It encourages teamwork. Throw this on a tanking character and now a monster has to pick which of two evils it wants to endure.
It ends with a reasonable pay off. The creature's disadvantage ends when you have forced it to spend an action to damage its own team. That's a great trade!
There's no saving throw. You know this spell will work, and its power level is such that it doesn't need a save. My goal is to make a caster feel like they are truly in control of the battlefield. If a change in tactics can mitigate or remove a spell's effects, I don't think it should have a save. Thus, the caster can generate a reliable effect for the cost of their spell slot.
Here's another control spell that mixes in a damage effect:
Flame Cage
Level 1 Conjuration
Casting Time: Action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 round
You cause waves searing flame to erupt from your outstretched hands, sweeping over your enemies and forming a cage that hems them in. Each creature in a 15-foot cube adjacent to you makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 2d8 fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one.
Until the start of your next turn, a flame cage forms at the cube’s edge. It sheds dim light in a 10-foot radius. A creature that crosses the cage takes 2d8 fire damage. Once a creature takes this damage, it cannot take it again until your next turn.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. The damage increases by 2d8 for each spell slot level above 1.
As you can see with this spell, we once again have a control effect firing off without a saving throw. The caster can sequester foes into one zone, punishing them with a fistful of damage if they try to leave the area of the cage.
As with the prior design, the idea is to force difficult choices. How badly do you want to move out of the area of this spell? By design it requires the caster to get up close to mix it up, requiring some finesse on the grid to stay safe. The control effect does not block attacks, so dropping this spell on a creature that can attack you doesn't do much. Time this right, though, and you can shut down part of the battlefield or levy a crushing amount of damage on enemies that need to close with you.
Fundamentally, these spells show how I want to approach control: I love it as a tool that casters can use to exercise control over a battlefield, rather than control over the action economy. This style, in my experience, keeps the game fun and interesting while still giving casters the chance to execute some clever plays.
Comments
Mike Mearls Games
Phantasmal Misdirection: I'm torn between scaling up targets or scaling up duration. As I think about it, maybe scaling up duration should also remove concentration from the spell. That feels like an attractive trade. Flame Cage: I thought about applying the damage if a creature makes a melee attack through the cube, but decided against it. The idea is that the caster can either play it safe by keeping an empty space between them and their targets, or they can get greedy and pack as many targets in. Ideally, in developing spells this would be a chance to do an A/B test, with flame cage having a some downsides and an alternate spell at the same level working differently.
DevarionArias
I like this concept. I always thought spells and abilities in D&D that shut down a creature or pc ability to do anything at all in a combat were annoying.
Moxx
First, I like that Phantasmal Misdirection starts at a duration of 1 round, with concentration. Most concentration spells last long periods, so once you use one, you're pretty much locked into that choice for the rest of the fight (and have to fight to not lose concentration). Having short duration concentration spells sounds like a nice improvement in that regard. (Different from the concentration spells ranger gets which are in direct conflict with its "main" concentration spell of Hunter's Mark.) Second, the end condition is a bit confusing. It appears to apply to all attacks made by a creature on a given turn (though not clearly stated as such). It ends if an attack hits. It's not clear if the attack that hits is one directed at the original protected target, or the potential re-directed target. Third, there's a thought about whether the upcast should be extra rounds of duration (and how does that interact with the end condition?), or extra targets (so that it can be affected by the new Twin Spell metamagic). With the above point about short duration concentration spells, I'd prefer multiple targets over multiple rounds. On the Flame Cage, there's the tactical positioning issue that comes with it. Since the cage is adjacent to the caster, if the caster is on one of the faces of the cage, that means 3 enemies can still attack him without crossing the boundary. Doesn't provide much limitation. If he's positioned at the corner of the cube, is there anything stopping any contained enemies from moving into the adjacent corner, attacking, then moving away to make room for another enemy, and repeat? It seems easy to abuse, and hard to make use of without abuse, which is contrary to how you'd want a spell designed.
