Neonchameleon
Legend
Here are some examples of what I mean from the current playtest material. I’m sorry If this comes over as a rant at times. I have to say that I was fairly happy with where the game was going before, but this topic really bugs me... To decrease the severity of the rant I will try to include ideas of what kinds of alternative rules I would prefer. I'd be really interested in your opinion on these thoughts.
From the Bestiary:
„Mob tactics“. In the description it says that the creature chooses an opponent. Other allies that also have this trait gain a bonus to their attack and damage against the chosen opponent. However, there is no explanation of what is happening and I’m struggling to find an answer. I guess what it means is that the creature isn’t actually choosing anyone, but is itself attacking the target creature, and the bonus it’s allies get represents this. If it is meant like that I don’t like it at all. In my book, when a creature is attacking another creature, it should make an attack roll. Seems to me that this rule was included to reduce the number of dice rolls when many creatures of one kind attack a single foe. If this is the case, I would very much favour seperate stat blocks for single creatures and for swarms of smaller variants of the same creature type.
There are several traits that function just like this. The gnoll is „Savage“, but only when it can see two other creatures with the Savage trait within 30 feet. Why? Why is the gnoll incapable of attacking with all his savagery, when he fights alone and is up against a helpless victim? Is he somehow restrained in his rage when he is alone?
The Hobgoblin has a „Disciplined“ action. It chooses a foe within it’s reach, and the next attack against this foe from his ally has advantage. But what is the Hobgoblin doing? And why is it best explained with the word „Disciplined“? A much better way of explaining things like these can be seen in the Guardian Specialty, where it says that you throw your shield between a creature and the ally that it tries to attack, giving the creature disadvantage.
Continuing with the Hobgoblin, it has the „Steadfast“ trait, meaning it cannot be frightened while an ally is within 30 feet. Why not? This may make sense when the Hobgoblins encounter the Player Characters, but does it make sense when two Hobgoblins encounter Cthulhu?
...
Summing up, what I see a lot in this iteration of the playtest is monster design where slapping a description like „Disciplined“ or „Savage“ onto a rules mechanic is ok and enough to explain what is happening in the world. I find this a problematic design approach and dearly hope they will reconsider. I’m also not a fan of heavy use of exception-based game design as I believe it is seldom the best way to represent a precise action that a creature is capable of.
Summing the above up, you've just described why I find the even the 2e monster manual mechanically bores me rigid. Without such abilities, the difference between an orc and a hobgoblin with the same equipment is something like +1 to hit and damage. And there's no major difference between a gnoll and an orc in terms of the way you fight them. Send in the clones!
With such mechanics for monster psychology and tactics, the way we fight differing monsters varies. Pack animals are creatures who are much more dangerous in packs and you defeat them in detail to win. We often go in with psychological warfare against orcs - but against hobgoblins it ain't gonna work. Simple, effective, allows for differing monster psychology (which is far more iteresting than "Orcs are seven foot tall, green skinned eat the left hind leg of worgs, and are +2 hit points and +1 to hit and damage over humans but -1 morale value" which is about all you are left with when you remove disassociated mechanics).
As a player, monsters who think differently and are at their most effective behaving differently are much more interesting than what are mechanically a set of clones and that I only gain an advantage over by unsettling them thanks to the generosity of a DM. And as a DM, I have literally never had problems working out how to interpret bonusses that are given for monsters behaving in the way they ought to.
Disassociated mechanics: An aid to gamism as they mean the monsters can be wrongfooted. An aid to narrativism as they mean the monsters feel more like their mythical archetypes. And an aid to any except the most process dirven simulationism because it allows the outcomes to match the desired outcomes.