D&D 4E Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters

[hawkeyefan]

I might have mis-communicated. A scene-framed game is neither sandbox nor AP/"linear"/railroad. Nor intermediate beteen them. It's its own thing, relying on different techniques from both sandbox and AP.

To be honest, that sounds like a cut-scene. As you describe it, it's not intended to have the players engage it via their PCs. There's no need for the PCs to even be there - you could do it as a narrated vignette just as well, if you were into that style of play, and (it seems) nothing would change.

I don't think of encounters as offering solutions - that implies they are puzzle to be solved. Encounters confront players (and their PCs) with the need to choose what they do, and how they respond. Parameters in play include practical/prudential considerations (eg managing resources), likelihood of success (which might vary between options, with different characters, etc), loyalties and obligations, and other values (eg "I feel really good about not having killed that bear", said by one player after the PCs succeed in taming an attacking bear). Ideally there should be some sort of tension between these considerations, so that the choice is not automatic (eg "We want to beat them up rather than compromise, but we're low on healing surges"; "If I fight these devils, my Sceptre of Law will get angry at me, because even devils are servants of the gods;" "We can't fight these slaver duergar, because we need to rest, so I guess we'll contract with them instead to redeem the slaves for 300 gp at an exchange to take place a month from today").

The option-set is to be conceived of by the players, not by me - my job is to frame them in, not steer them out. So there is not even such a thing as "a guard to be got passed" until the players have already decided that that's how they want to engage the situation. At which point they've already reviewed the option-set for engaging the situation and narrowed it down.

As to whether I would have a literally un-bribable guard? Typically not. (Assuming we're talking here about a mundane human guard.) That would be contrary to "say yes or roll the dice". (It's a bit complicated in D&D which (i) uses a non-abstract wealth system, meaning the GM has to come up with a "price" for the guard, and (ii) uses resolution where auto-success and auto-fail are possible circumstances, as opposed to say a dice-pool system which sets a target for successful dice and so always permits failure no matter how big the pool if, by chance, all the dice come up negative. If the PCs offer a "duty bound" guard 10 gp to look the other way, I might happily say "no way", although - depending on the mood of play and the back-and-forth at the table - I might, as GM, observe as they are preparing their action declaration that 10 gp is a pretty pox bribe! If the bribe amount doesn't look pitifully small, though, then I'll set a DC and run with it.)

Understood.

I think we play very differently. I am willing to use many different approaches and methods throughout the game. Maybe a lot of this has to do with the chosen systems we use....maybe not.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

when it comes to 4th edition and it's monsters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoELQ7px9ws explains the things I liked about 4th edition pretty well,

 

[Ilbranteloth]

when it comes to 4th edition and it's monsters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoELQ7px9ws explains the things I liked about 4th edition pretty well,

And actually, that video explains pretty well everything I hate about 4th edition and its approach to monsters.

The dragon is a good example because what makes a dragon interesting to me is not it's attacks and such, but its personality. Its intelligence is what makes them truly dangerous. It doesn't mean that I'm not open to some other ideas to modify them. But the modifications I'm interested in aren't to add "cool abilities" or attempt to design something that challenges the PCs more.

The dragon is a creature that is highly intelligent, has survived centuries, and is well aware of its capabilities. Sometimes they get a bit overconfident, but that's because it's extremely rare that they are actually seriously challenged by any group. A large army, or whatever, sure, but that's something they'll fly away from.

Now I have modified mine because I think they have become to easy to hit and kill. Mostly resistances and immunities as I feel an ancient dragon should be nearly invulnerable, and really if a party is actually going to attempt to slay a dragon, it involves a lot of research and planning, particularly looking for weaknesses, either in its defenses (such as figuring out a way to trap it in its lair), its personality, tactics, or other factors that would give you a benefit.

Another good example is VGtM. I like a lot of the updates for older monsters, but can't stand the majority of the extra versions of creatures like the new giants, gnolls, orcs, etc.

The biggest issue for me is one of world building. It's not that I can't fit them into my world, but they feel a lot like what is described in that video - let's find some cool abilities for these monsters, rather than worrying about whether they fit the world or not. The hobgoblin "Academy of Devastation" for example. In none of the existing lore for the Realms would indicate that hobgoblins have a sophisticated culture or civilization. Now they have an establishment of higher education?

I don't have any issue with folks that enjoy these approaches, and I am probably in a minority as far as my perspective and preferences go. But this is something marketed as specifically a Forgotten Realms product, by its association with Volo (and to a lesser extent Elminster). It's just way off base from Volo's character as portrayed by Ed Greenwood. Sure, they're welcome to publish what they'd like, and you can argue that Volo is often way off the mark.

Really, I'm not concerned, at all, about finding "more interesting" orcs to challenge the PCs. Orcs come from a relatively primitive, war-like society. They have to survive their own violent culture, and one of their primary survival tactics is to outnumber their opponents. That along with having pretty good combat tactics is enough to make orcs a challenge for almost any level. At least that's the way my players see it.

 

[werecorpse]

And actually, that video explains pretty well everything I hate about 4th edition and its approach to monsters.

The dragon is a good example because what makes a dragon interesting to me is not it's attacks and such, but its personality. Its intelligence is what makes them truly dangerous. It doesn't mean that I'm not open to some other ideas to modify them. But the modifications I'm interested in aren't to add "cool abilities" or attempt to design something that challenges the PCs more.

The dragon is a creature that is highly intelligent, has survived centuries, and is well aware of its capabilities. Sometimes they get a bit overconfident, but that's because it's extremely rare that they are actually seriously challenged by any group. A large army, or whatever, sure, but that's something they'll fly away from.

Now I have modified mine because I think they have become to easy to hit and kill. Mostly resistances and immunities as I feel an ancient dragon should be nearly invulnerable, and really if a party is actually going to attempt to slay a dragon, it involves a lot of research and planning, particularly looking for weaknesses, either in its defenses (such as figuring out a way to trap it in its lair), its personality, tactics, or other factors that would give you a benefit.

I get your points about not liking certain hobgoblin or or variations in Volo's which impact upon world building issues. To me that's a personal world building taste issue. I also get making certain monsters tougher (add hp, ac, resistances etc)

1. How have you modified dragons, can you give an example?

2. Why don't you want them to have extra abilities such as were in 4e that are meant to work to redress the likely imbalance in the action economy (such as bloodied breath, a damage aura or breath that combines with a dispel resistance)?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I get your points about not liking certain hobgoblin or or variations in Volo's which impact upon world building issues. To me that's a personal world building taste issue. I also get making certain monsters tougher (add hp, ac, resistances etc)

1. How have you modified dragons, can you give an example?

2. Why don't you want them to have extra abilities such as were in 4e that are meant to work to redress the likely imbalance in the action economy (such as bloodied breath, a damage aura or breath that combines with a dispel resistance)?

1. I granted adult dragons resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage that is non-magical, and ancient dragons resistance to all damage of those types, whether magical or not.

Adult or older dragons also have magic resistance (advantage on saving throws against spells and magical effects).

Adult or older dragons have all of their potential attacks - tail, wing buffet, two separate claw attacks, and bite.

Dragons have spellcasting or spell-like abilities from earlier editions.

I consider the frightful presence to work a bit differently, with creatures having a very good chance of dropping what's in their hands (like AD&D) if they are affected by it. In addition, I go farther than the normal frightful presence in that if you fail by more than 5, even when you've recovered from the effect because you are out of its presence, you find the creature utterly terrifying and would prefer not to go near it at all, but if you overcome your fear to do so, your attacks and ability checks are made with disadvantage when in its presence for the next 24 hours. If you fail by more than 10 (which is the case with most common folk and low-level characters) you'll pretty much be terrified of it whenever in its presence and for all practical purposes, unable to hunt the creature any more. Gaining a level would make a difference, along with perhaps some spells (I'd adjudicate it along the lines of a curse, or perhaps a geas).

2. I don't particularly have a problem with them having additional abilities, although the basic dragon lore in my campaign has remained more or less the same since the late '80s. What I don't like is creating extra abilities to overcome a shortcoming in the rule system, nor abilities that dramatically change the way the creature would interact with the world around it. In the video, the first thing he suggested was an aura of 25' that automatically (with no saving throw) causes fire damage. A dragon wandering the countryside with that effect would have an enormous impact on the world in ways that I find undesirable. It doesn't fit with past lore from the game, and if all a red dragon needed to do was wander the countryside and set it ablaze (which it would do), then it really changes the nature of the dragon itself.

Of course, a dragon can (and should) still have an enormous potential impact, and a red dragon could certainly choose to use its breath weapons to start fires. I should also mention that fire damage is more dangerous in my campaign, potentially causing things to catch fire, and additional damage on subsequent rounds unless you take the time to put it out. Fire is one of the most terrifying things for a person to face in real life, and dragonfire is similar to magical fire in special properties in my campaign (capable of destroying some artifacts, for example, although not necessarily just in an attack). Other breath weapons are similarly more potent, and this also goes back to AD&D where breath weapon saving throws were separate from other types.

I prefer to fix rules that present problems from modeling than create a new rule to compensate. I allow their multiattack to include a bite or breath weapon, two claws (these can be grapples as well), and a tail sweep, plus legendary actions (which deals with the problem of action economy rather elegantly). Note that the tail sweep is an area attack, not just against a single creature, and has a high chance of pushing creatures and/or knocking them prone. A spell or spell-like ability can replace he attacks, or be one of the legendary actions, in addition to its other attacks for the round.

They will know their lair, and typically an area within at least a 10 mile radius very, very well. Their size and strength makes it possible to cause a small cave-in and their size reduces the potential impact of such an event toward them. A dragon's personality with regards to prey in my world are quite catlike. They'll play with the dragon slayers, coming in to attack, perhaps grabbing one or two when flying by, and dropping them from a significant height, trapping them under their claws (a grapple and it has advantage and you disadvantage due to the size difference), only to let them "escape" for a few moments only to do it again. In fact, an initial attack that includes a breath weapon, grappling one or two creatures and then taking off with them is an amazingly effective way to start a combat.

Essentially use tactics in a way to show their utter dominance against such an enemy, until they grow bored. In which case they will either kill them outright, or lure them into a dangerous situation where other monsters (possibly even minions or allies) can "play" with them instead. Most of them are far more interested in a battle of wits/conversation with somebody courageous enough to remain within their presence than to just outright kill them.

I'm not concerned about making it easy, or even all that possible for the PCs to be able to destroy a creature that has survived centuries and is considered to be about the most terrifying and powerful mortal creatures. Fiends are also significantly more powerful than in the MM in my campaigns for the same reason.

Coupled with the fact that level advancement is much slower, and capped by a max level/max level of spell that can be cast, based on your ability scores, a team of dragon slayers is often somewhere between 7th and 11th level, and won't be after an ancient dragon. Most of the time an adventure involving a dragon is for some other reason than attempting to slay it. Dragons on a rampage (which happens very infrequently) can survive a small army, although they don't typically land in the middle of it either. Spells, fly-by attacks, and breath weapon attacks are the most common approach, and it knows when its breath weapon has recharged, so it stays out of range until then. But attacking the civilized world is a dangerous business. A smallish group of dragon slayers is one thing, an organized army that is prepared and well-equipped is a much bigger nuisance, if not ultimately more dangerous. Even then it's more likely to drive the dragon off than to actually slay it.

So it's primarily beefing up the traditional strengths of such a creature, in terms of how difficult they are to hit and kill, how terrifying they are in combat, and utilizing those capabilities to be as effective as possible. Even without beefing things up too much, grappling and taking off with a creature or two and getting out of range of the rest of the party is an extremely effective tactic. A parting shot with the breath weapon as it does so softens up the rest of the party for future attacks. When possible fly-by attacks using grapples, breath weapon, and tail attacks are also a favorite.

My approach is very traditional, but I've always felt that a party that actually succeeds in slaying a dragon should rightfully be legendary. Most of the time it's just another band that's "never heard from again."

 

[Xeviat]

Nothing about 4E stat blocks kept people from playing a monster the way they wanted, except where things were specifically changed. 4E dragons losing their spells, for example, is a change that changes how you can play them. But their personality really isn't part of the stat block. Heck, 4E creatures, with their evocative abilities, often spoke to personalities. The blue dragon has a host of ranged attacks that go along with its artillery role. Thus, this speaks to blue dragons (in 4th) preferring to fight from range. That's a personality thing.

I will say that the 4E monster manual was a boring read. I read the 5E MM cover to cover in my first two days with it. It's a lot of fun. But, I also skip reading the stat blocks. They pain me. They're boring. Each dragon is basically the same as all the others in its age category, except for lair actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pemerton]

I will say that the 4E monster manual was a boring read.

I liked reading it, imagining how I could use the monsters in a game. Maybe it's just something quirky about me, but I found the stat blocks - especially the descriptions of various abilities - would evoke for me the idea of some cool scene or situation involving that monster, which I would then use to inspire encounter building for my game.

The dragon is a good example because what makes a dragon interesting to me is not it's attacks and such, but its personality.

<snip>

The biggest issue for me is one of world building.

I don't particularly have a problem with them having additional abilities, although the basic dragon lore in my campaign has remained more or less the same since the late '80s. What I don't like is creating extra abilities to overcome a shortcoming in the rule system, nor abilities that dramatically change the way the creature would interact with the world around it. In the video, the first thing he suggested was an aura of 25' that automatically (with no saving throw) causes fire damage. A dragon wandering the countryside with that effect would have an enormous impact on the world in ways that I find undesirable. It doesn't fit with past lore from the game, and if all a red dragon needed to do was wander the countryside and set it ablaze (which it would do), then it really changes the nature of the dragon itself.

<snip>

I prefer to fix rules that present problems from modeling than create a new rule to compensate.

I think the idea is that the dragon only blazes with fire when it's roused to fury. I think there are passages somewhere in JRRT - maybe the Silmarillion? - in which enraged dragons ravage the countryside.

As far as changes to action economy are concerned - there has been toying with dragon action economy for ever (eg more attacks, like wings and tails). To re-quote the letter from Frank Mentzer to Dragon magazine that I posted already upthread:

Here's a letter to Dragon no 101 (Sep '85):

After reading #98 and seeing the following quotes, I feel moved to comment.

“Adventurers should give dragons a healthy degree of respect.” — Roger Moore

“The largest and oldest dragons are tougher, and they provide an even greater challenge to high-level characters . . .” — Leonard Carpenter​

I agree, but even mid-level (7-11) AD&D game characters go dragon hunting. Where are the wyrms of fairy tales, the great dragons who once commanded fear and respect?

Glad you asked. Answer — in the D&D® game system, specifically the Companion Set. Parties of 20th, 25th, and even 30th level hear tales of big dragons with incredible hoards — and go elsewhere, to save their skins! Doubt me? Picture this:

The seven 25th-level characters are all invisible, flying, wearing +5 everything, and carrying the mightiest weapons known to man. They cautiously proceed up a mountainside, toward the dragon’s reputed lair. Suddenly and soundlessly, gliding over the sprawling arms of the mountain on the gusty air currents, a great red dragon appears. In mere seconds, it swoops down, picks up three victims — one in each claw, and one hapless soul in its jaws — and flies on, disappearing over the next ridge.

The survivors know that a single breath from the beast may inflict over 150 points of damage. Thus, though still well-equipped, they quickly retreat towards town for as many reinforcements as they can gather. But the dragon returns after its short snack, much sooner than expected. The characters spot it coming, this time, and prepare . . . but there is not enough time. A vast winged fury, the beast breathes as it swoops in. As it hovers briefly, it kicks over two characters with its rear feet, knocks another head over heels with its great tail (disarming him in the process), and adds the usual attacks from bite and claws. End of round one.

In round two, the beast lands squarely on the cleric, crushing her. Though the two victims of the kicks are fleeing, now 60 feet away, the dragon lashes out at them with its wings, buffeting the victims soundly and stunning them. It then looks around, deciding which to eat first, and gets ready to breathe again, to have a nice hot meal . . . but that’s enough of this sad tale.

They’re not indestructible, but they are powerful. Woe to the unwary traveler, who heeds not the tales of the great wyrms of the far mountains. And it is lucky that the dragons avoid the cities of man, knowing full well the inherent danger of that species, hazardous even for them. Let us hope that they continue to live far away, out of the reach of all but the bravest and most powerful of adventurers.

The new, revised D&D game — it’s not just for kids.​

The author of that letter? Frank Mentzer. He recognised that, in a mechanically heavy game like D&D, for a creature to be expereinced as threatening in the fiction it needs corresponding mechanical capabilities. The dragon he describes has action economy (claw, bite, rear leg, wing and tail attacks), action denial (disarm, stun) and AoE (powerful breath weapon).

Putting some of that action economy into off-turn attacks is just about spreading that action economy over multiple points of the round, rather than bunching it all up at once. It's not so much about changing the rules, as reducing the stop-motion feel of 3E-and-subsequent turn-by-turn resolution.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Nothing about 4E stat blocks kept people from playing a monster the way they wanted, except where things were specifically changed. 4E dragons losing their spells, for example, is a change that changes how you can play them. But their personality really isn't part of the stat block. Heck, 4E creatures, with their evocative abilities, often spoke to personalities. The blue dragon has a host of ranged attacks that go along with its artillery role. Thus, this speaks to blue dragons (in 4th) preferring to fight from range. That's a personality thing.

I will say that the 4E monster manual was a boring read. I read the 5E MM cover to cover in my first two days with it. It's a lot of fun. But, I also skip reading the stat blocks. They pain me. They're boring. Each dragon is basically the same as all the others in its age category, except for lair actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. But the stat blocks in 4e, especially with the different versions of monsters, steer you toward a particular approach, in the same way they pigeonholed PCs into roles by class and the design of those classes. To me, those abilities don't speak to personality, in part because every blue dragon is expected to be that way. Instead, those abilities read as game design to me. That is, let's come up with stats and abilities to make the red dragon different from the blue dragon. They each need a bloodied ability, and an aura ability, etc, because there are these combat role and slots, you see, that need to be filled. That's the design of the game.

And I don't want my world to be designed to fit the slots of a game, I want the game to model the world however we wish to design it. If the design of the game is preventing me from making the creature, character, or action the way I want, then there's a problem with the rules.

I don't expect stat blocks to excite me. Because they tell me little about a creature. The stat block shouldn't control how I would portray a particular monster any more than it should control how a player controls their character. There's a similar thread on Reddit about how chromatic dragons all "feel" the same in combat. To me I say, "of course they do, they're dragons." That is, the general abilities of a dragon, the general look, etc. are what make a dragon a dragon. A breath weapon, magic, a really large and powerful lizard-like creature that flies (and yes, there are some that might swim). But all dragons should feel different in combat, or in any encounter for that matter, because each one is a unique, intelligent individual. It's not like meeting 30 squirrels that will all have a similar instinctive approach to life. Meeting 30 dragons of whatever type should be a unique experience.

Really, it's more a question of perspective and goals. I think that a dragon is a dragon and should, on the face of things, be very similar from one type to another. There are more similarities than differences in terms of biology. What differentiates them are not their abilities, but their personality. If you want to give examples of personality and tactics in the MM, I'm fine with that, but that the personality and tactics could be applied to any type of dragon, not that a blue dragon acts this way, and a green dragon that way.

Because to me, the stats shouldn't tell you anything about personality. As soon as you start designing personality into the stats, you are restricting my usage, and my lore of that monster. Although the 4e approach really wasn't about personality as much as it was combat effectiveness. In your band of orcs you need strikers, leaders, or tanks, or whatever. So here's a striker orc "build." And they create rules, with new abilities, that change the established lore.

Perfect if the new MM is tied to a new world with its own approach, lore and what have you. It was even highlighted as one of the design goals, that they realized that D&D had some iconic monsters and such, but it didn't have its own lore. That the lore was either borrowed or assumed in terms of other influences, so we'll make a new D&D lore. And we'll make new abilities that fit our new format that accentuates that lore. Like elves aren't elves anymore. Now they are eladrin. Unless they're elves, that is. Those elves can stay the same.

Except that this wasn't true, elves in the Forgotten Realms had lore. Thousands of years of it. Yes, it closely resembled Tolkien, but it had its own lore. Halflings had their place in the world, which was quite different from those in Athas.

So more than anything, I object to all of this new design changing the established lore around which I have based my campaign for 30+ years. Don't make your new lore the default for all campaigns in this new edition.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I liked reading it, imagining how I could use the monsters in a game. Maybe it's just something quirky about me, but I found the stat blocks - especially the descriptions of various abilities - would evoke for me the idea of some cool scene or situation involving that monster, which I would then use to inspire encounter building for my game.

So put it in descriptive text where you can provide potential examples of different personalities and tactics, rather than narrowing the focus of every one of that particular monster.

I think the idea is that the dragon only blazes with fire when it's roused to fury. I think there are passages somewhere in JRRT - maybe the Silmarillion? - in which enraged dragons ravage the countryside.

But this is using existing abilities, not new abilities that appear just for ravaging time. Like the new abilities that appear only when a creature was bloodied. I get the concept behind the approach, but it meant that every creature needed a bloodied ability, and preferably something different, or unique, and cool.

Again, my main objection is a combination of how the extra abilities and such are focused so heavily on combat, and how they drive the creature toward a specific set of tactics, combined with how it alters prior lore and such.

As far as changes to action economy are concerned - there has been toying with dragon action economy for ever (eg more attacks, like wings and tails). To re-quote the letter from Frank Mentzer to Dragon magazine that I posted already upthread:

Putting some of that action economy into off-turn attacks is just about spreading that action economy over multiple points of the round, rather than bunching it all up at once. It's not so much about changing the rules, as reducing the stop-motion feel of 3E-and-subsequent turn-by-turn resolution.

Yes that's true. And that's a function of trying to model something that is fluid and always in motion within a turn-based mechanic. But it's also about providing the dragon more attack within each round as well.

Some of what I look at in terms of design when tweaking attacks are what I think a dragon (or any monster for that matter) should be able to do with a single attack. For example a fully grown dragon is enormous, and much like a giant, should be able to pick up your average person and kill them by simply slamming them to the ground. That's not that difficult to model, because your average human has about 6 hit points. So then it's a question of what an ancient dragon could reasonably be expected to kill in a single blow. A horse? A bear? An elephant? That sets a baseline for the amount of damage I'd expect a single claw attack to be capable of inflicting. I think the 17 average per claw attack of an ancient dragon is probably too low for my campaign. At least against a creature that's 2 or 3 sizes smaller than it.

So if the average claw attack is, say 30 damage, that greatly alters not who might dare to become a dragon slayer, but their tactics. Because even high level characters can potentially be at risk of dying with only a handful of attacks, possibly in the first couple of rounds. But I'm OK with that, ancient dragons are the sort of thing that require really, really good tactics, or an army to kill.

 

[pemerton]

I think the 17 average per claw attack of an ancient dragon is probably too low for my campaign. At least against a creature that's 2 or 3 sizes smaller than it.

How much damage does a blow from Achilles's spear do? Let's say 8 for a max damage roll, +5 for STR, +3 for sundry other bonuses, = 16. How much more dangerous should an ancient dragon's claw be than Achilles's spear?

Different people will have different view on this. My feeling is that 17 seems not too far off the mark. It makes senseto me that it hurts less than having a giant's rock land on top of you! (30-ish damage.)

So if the average claw attack is, say 30 damage, that greatly alters not who might dare to become a dragon slayer, but their tactics. Because even high level characters can potentially be at risk of dying with only a handful of attacks, possibly in the first couple of rounds.

As far as dragons are concerned, I envisage the risk of sudden death to a hero coming from the breath weapon rather than the claw attack.

I think the idea is that the dragon only blazes with fire when it's roused to fury. I think there are passages somewhere in JRRT - maybe the Silmarillion? - in which enraged dragons ravage the countryside.

But this is using existing abilities, not new abilities that appear just for ravaging time. Like the new abilities that appear only when a creature was bloodied. I get the concept behind the approach, but it meant that every creature needed a bloodied ability, and preferably something different, or unique, and cool.

I don't really follow this.

In 4e, a raging dragon being able to inflict fire damage out to 25' (5 sq) is an existing ability. JRRT's dragons have a similar capability, I think - the heat of their bodies drives away their enemies, and the fumes that they breathe are poisonous in a way that is better modelled by some sort of aura than by D&D's breath weapon mechanic.

As far as "new abilities that appear only when bloodied" - I'm not sure what you're referring to. In 4e, dragons that are bloodied recharge and use their breath, just as described in the Youtube video. This is not a new ability; it's a type of action economy/pacing thing.

So put it in descriptive text where you can provide potential examples of different personalities and tactics, rather than narrowing the focus of every one of that particular monster.

Again, I'm not sure that I follow.

I remember reading the Deathlock Wight entry, and being really struck and impressed by the design of it Horrific Visage:

Fear, psychic * Recharge 4 5 6
Attack: Close blast 5 (creatures in the blast); +7 vs. Will
Hit: 1d6 + 6 psychic damage, and the wight pushes the target up to 3 squares.​

The idea that the wight could make its enemies recoil in horror captured my imagination; the use of the blast AoE to model a gaze (ie only one side of the wight is affected, namely, the side it is looking at) struck me as a clever use of the base design elements).

When the PCs in my game encountered a deathlock wight in my game, there were pits in the room and one PC nearly fell down. But for some reason (I think because the passage leading down to the wight's mausoleum was sloping) the players had decided that the characters would rope themselves together; and that paid off, as the dwarf made a successful STR check to stop the other character (maybe the elven ranger) falling down the pit.

For me, that was a good moment in play. The deathlock wight's horrific visage was experienced in play, insofar as at least one adventurer recoiled in terror; and the roping together paid off. I don't understand how descriptive text is a substitute for this: I can describe away as much as I want how horrific the wight is, but no player I've ever played with is going to free narrate his/her PC recoiling in horror so as to full down a pit.

Again, my main objection is a combination of how the extra abilities and such are focused so heavily on combat, and how they drive the creature toward a specific set of tactics

4e uses a whole other framework for non-combat resolution, namely, skill challenges. There's plenty of discussion to be had about how to frame skill challenges; and how to integrate them with combat (which is one of the bigger technical challenges of GMing 4e).

But the monster stat block is not intended to carry this non-combat resolution.

For instance, when I adapted the Robin Laws HeroWars adventure Demon of the Red Grove to 4e, I had to decide how to handle the trapped demon's terror inducing screams in 4e:

First the PCs had to endure the demon's three cries of "Go Away!" (group checks, with failing PCs taking psychic damage - the sorcerer, who is also a multi-class bard, was the most flamboyant here, spending his Rhythm of Disorientation encounter power to open up the use of Diplomacy for the check, which in the fiction was him singing a song of apples blossoming in the summer). Somewhere during this process the cleric-ranger and invoker both succeeded at Perception checks and could hear the high-pitched whistling of a song bird. And the sorcerer's Arcana check revealed the presence of the demon - an ancient and mighty glabrezu (level 27 solo, as I told the players in order to try to convey the requisite sense of gravity).

At this point I thought they would attack the demon, but they decided to speak to it first, to find out how it had got there and what it was doing there. With successful Diplomacy checks they learned that it had been summoned long ago during the Dawn War ("When Miska's armies were marshalling on the Plain of a Thousand Portals") by a powerful drow who had come into the Abyss, in order to ambush a strong and cruel sorceress. But the sorceress had defeated it and trapped it in the grove. When they asked it the name of the sorceress, it replied that the name had been erased from its memory - at which point the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen worked out the sorceress was his mistress, and the player of the drow worked out that the ambusher must be Lolth.

None of that required anything in the stat block of the glabrezu, because it is managed via the framing of checks and consequences in a skill challenge. The monster stat block isn't the place where this non-combat stuff is handled in the 4e system.