Between this, and the new
Legends and Lore, it seems to be getting clearer that there won't be much support for 4e-style play.
This was particularly striking from the L&L column:
One of my favorite pieces of 4th Edition was its approach to the humanoid monsters. They felt distinct not only in terms of story and place in the world, but also in how they played during combat. Goblins skittered away from the characters, gnolls swarmed in hungry packs, and so forth.
Rather than make special abilities a feature of every creature, we're instead moving those abilities to chieftains, shamans, and other leaders. . .
When a creature's story and background demand it, we will also allow exceptions to how we assign special abilities. Even the weakest drow has an array of magical abilities. We won't remove abilities for the sake of hitting this goal [of scaling complexity and sending gameplay signals to players and GMs].
This implies two things: (i) that "story and background" are based on a pre-4e standard, and (ii) that "story and background" are being treated as something indpenent of, and prior to mechanics, rather than something that it is the job of the mechanics to produce.
So instead of hobgoblins who form phalanxes because they get an AC bonus (as in 4e), there will be flavour text telling us that hobgoblins form phalanxes, and that goblins are sneaky, even though mechanically there will be little reason for the hobgoblins not to sneak or for the goblins not to form phalanxes.
The tactical combat model desctribed in Ro3 doesn't look to me much like 4e either:
this chunk of optional rules covers tighter integration with a grid, templates for area effects, more grid-based rules for line of sight and cover, along with more options for movement and forced movement. . . . we want the tactical combat module to provide a full, rich tactical experience that is completely compatible with our base rules.
Mearls adds:
one of our goals is to create a general set of stunts that monsters can attempt . . . abilities such as stomp, fling, and bull rush might exist as maneuvers that any monster can attempt in the tactical combat module. . . The goal is that a group playing without miniatures or a grid can run a fight that captures the core of a monster. A group that loves tactical combat and detail can add that, with the DM now having more freedom and flexibility to throw unexpected tactics at the party.
Particularly in light of what Mearls says about monster design, I don't have any hope that we'll see monsters like the Deathlock Wight (uses forced movement + psychic damage to model PCs fleeing from fear at its Horrific Visage) or PC powers like Come and Get It or even Thunderwave.
Tactical combat resolution seems to be being treated as an end in itself, rather than (as in 4e) a vehicle for communicating and generating deeper thematic and story elements.
