And this is the area where 4e was
far and away superior to other editions of D&D in my experience. 4e takes an approach for its statblocks "It's not who you are underneath but what you do on the outside that counts".
Below is the standard 5e Adult Green Dragon statblock pasted from the SRD. I am very interested in seeing what you think that that statblock says about the personality of the dragon in question and how it differentiates it from any other adult dragon other than that it has slightly different numbers and a different breath attack. (And it swims rather than flies, burrows, or climbs).
...
I see almost nothing telling me
from the stats what you say is the important part of the dragon other than the skills. For that matter when it goes claw/claw/bite (as it does under multiattack) I can't tell it from other monsters in general making three attacks by the mechanics.
Below is the Young Black Dragon from the 4e Monster Vault - and it tells me how the dragon
moves. It doesn't just waddle or fly up to people and make full attacks. Yes, it goes claw/claw or bite. But rather than no-selling attacks with Legendary Resistance 3/day it shows me why and how dragons are overwhelming thanks to Action Recovery and Instinctive Devouring (and doesn't just no-sell the way every other big monster does). And then there's the Shroud of Gloom. The dragon using its specifically draconic magic in combat.
...
So what does it do when the rubber meets the road? Bite Claw Claw Wing Buffet Wing Buffet Tail Slap. Or breathes acid. *yawn* Or, admittedly, turns the lights out on people the way a cleric can but at will and bigger. Meanwhile it has nine cross-referenced spells and seven cross-referenced feats so the statblock is incomplete.
...
2e is no better. It hides its rules in paragraphs of junk - for example the Dragon's mule-kick has a paragraph of its own (and applies to all dragons). Or ones like the following:
Spells: Dragons learn spells haphazardly over the years. The DM should randomly determine which spells any particular dragon knows. The dragon can cast each spell once per day, unless random determination indicates the same spell more than once, in which case the dragon can cast it more than once a day. Dragons to not use spell books or pray to deities; they simply sleep, concentrate when they awaken, and remember their spells. Dragon spells have only a verbal component; the spells have a casting time of 1, regardless of level. Dragons cannot physically attack, use their breath weapon, use their magical abilities, or fly (except to glide) while casting a spell.
Oh, and under black dragons:
[FONT="][SIZE=3]Black dragons are born with an innate [I]water breathing[/I] ability and an immunity to acid. As they age, they gain the following additional powers:[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]Juvenile: darkness three times a day in a 10' radius per age category of the dragon. Adult: corrupt water once a day. For every age category a dragon attains, it can stagnate 10 cubic feet of water, making it become still, foul, inert, and unable to support animal life. When this ability is used against potions and elixirs, they become useless if they roll a 15 or better on 1d20. Old: plant growth once a day. Venerable: summon insects once a day. Great wyrm: charm reptiles three times a day. This operates as a charm mammals spell, but is applicable only to reptiles.[/FONT]
In short these are innate abilities that don't tell me how they act. But they make the creatures harder to run.
...
Dragons were your example. And the 4e dragon statblock I've presented is more flavourful, tells me more about how dragons move and act when the rubber meets the road, and is much easier to use than the 2e, the 3.5, the Pathfinder, and the 5e statblock.
First, I don't have an issue with the stat block. I have an issue with the monster design in 4e. All of the stat blocks tell you how the dragon moves, the 5e one lists regular, fly, and swim in your example.
The 3e stat block is "incomplete" because it is cross-referencing already published information. That's fine, but the 9 spells give it more options than the single spell-like ability of the 4e black dragon. This is a design and publishing decision. For example, the 1e PHB presents the spell descriptions by class and level. So the same spell is listed multiple times if more than one class has it, often with a reference to the other version as "it's the same." Due in part to the price of publishing and to keep word count down, 2e through 3.5e largely avoided duplicate text like this, referring you to the location where it is already detailed. If the entire text of the spell was in the monster description of each monster, it would greatly lengthen the book.
4e avoided either by reducing abilities to more restricitive descriptions that could be described in 1 or two sentences, or eliminated the abilities altogether. So now the black dragon can no longer cast
darkness, summon insects (
insect plague) and summon reptiles and corrupt water. The just lose the abilities.
The stat blocks and approaches over the years have varied quite a bit, and the 4e versions are very concise, and complete. But that's not my issue. When I look at the 4e black dragon I wonder:
1. Why is the blood acidic only when at half hit points? I know, some people explain that that is when the dragon has actually started to take damage that causes it to bleed. Except that I don't accept that in order for the dragon to be bleeding, that it must be at 50% or less hit points. More importantly, if you're going to say that black dragons have acidic blood (which I could probably go along with), then stabbing it with a sword should potentially put your sword at risk, no matter how many hit points it has left.
2. Why don't all dragons have Instinctive Devouring or Action recovery?
3. Why can it only use its tail sweep as a reaction, and then only when somebody attacks and misses?
4. Why does it have to be bloodied to use bloodied breath? And why only when it is initially made bloodied? I prefer the Legendary Actions approach of 5e that allow extra actions like this for a creature such as a dragon when the rules are based around action economy.
I
want dragons to largely have the same abilities, because they are all dragons. That there are a few differences (breath weapon type being the obvious one), is all I really need or care for. You prefer something different and I don't have any problem with that. You want them to appear different within the rules themselves, in the stat block, so that they'll all have unique abilities. That's not my concern when it comes to monster design.
You ask where the stat blocks detail what I find important about dragons? They don't. That's my point. I don't want every black dragon to act the same, they are very intelligent creatures. Just as every human you meet won't be the same. Every single dragon has their own personality, develops their own tactics, etc. The 3e stat block requires you to cross reference, and the 2e one requires you to (gasp!) make decisions about what spells they'll have.
Dragons are quite rare, and where they exist have a noticeable effect on the world. Back in the day, Ed Greenwood ran a series in Dragon (most of which were collected in the Draconomican if I recall),
Wyrms of the North. That's the approach I take with dragons. Each one is unique.
Oh, and a claw/claw/bite looks different to the characters when it's a dragon, not the stat block, not the dice. Being bitten by a dragon is different than being bitten by a dog. On paper the only thing that will look different is the damage, perhaps. Just like being attacked by crossbows, arrows, swords, or whatever also largely looks the same no matter who is wielding it.
1: What do you think classes were and what is the point of them? Classes are about pigeonholing and creating archetypes.
2: As demonstrated with the dragon example, every edition of D&D has done this. Almost all those statblocks for dragons have been about combat.
Yep. And that's why I've said that I considered some of the class-less variations. But we've come to the conclusion that in a pseudo-medieval world that there are broad categories that work for us. And the archetype approach of 5e differentiates them into slightly narrower archetypes.
The point is, the 4e dragons and monsters, for example, narrowed the focus more than I like. Things like Action Recovery for the black dragon is similar to Legendary Resistance in 5e, but all dragons get it, which makes more sense to me, and I like it better.
As I have demonstrated, welcome to D&D. 4e gives you the most customisation possible of any version of D&D. It also gives the monsters a personality in combat and in the case of dragons says how the types differ other than through simply having different abilities.
I still don't read personality in any of the stat blocks from any edition. They've given the black dragon a charge ability. That's not personality. I also don't see any logical reason why a red dragon couldn't charge as well if they wanted to. It's more restrictive from my perspective.
If you want to say 4e had more described abilities as a whole? I don't think anybody could argue that. I don't know if there's a list of all the powers that appeared in every monster or class for 4e, but there are a ton. So if customizability means mixing and matching abilities, sure, it's very customizable (but probably very unwieldy). The 3.5 feat system became the same way. Way too many choices.
I can customize any edition, and find that it's easier to do so with fewer choices. But in the discussion about the dragons, the customizing I do is personality and such. Which I think is also something that is best left at least at a setting level, if not to the DM.
Really? That's how the 2e design reads to me. The 4e design is let's make actual meaningful differences in the behaviour and approach of dragon types.
It gives them different abilities, yes. But many, if not most, of those abilities are abilities that I think all dragons should have.
----> GURPS is thataway
<---- Fate is thataway.
When you play D&D you are playing a game with hit points and classes. You are playing a game designed round a class and level system.
Thanks for that. Hadn't quite figured that out after 30+ years.
And 4e doesn't do that. 4e statblocks are best used as descriptive tools so you can describe the monsters as they face the players.
4e is literally the only version of D&D I don't find incredibly constraining this way. As DM I can make monsters behave the way I want. There's no formula saying that "All ogres use d8s for hit dice unless they have class levels" because that would be ridiculous.
First off, why wouldn't all ogres have d8 hit dice unless they have class levels? All of any creature in the game has the same hit dice (as an adult) unless they have some particular training that changes it (class levels).
Here's a summary of the options for the 5e Green Dragon you posted:
Walk/Dash/Fly or swim
Really good at Perception, reasonably stealthy, can't be poisoned, can has blindsight and darkvision
Can breathe air or water.
Can automatically succeed on three saving throws each day
Can use its Frightful Presence, then make three attacks (claw/claw/bite) or it can use its breath weapon.
You left out the Legendary Actions portion, which allow it to make a Perception check, and/or a tail attack, and/or a wing attack as well.
That's a lot of options. And you get even more if you use the optional Dragons as Spellcasters, giving this one 3 5th-level or lower spells each day, of your choice. No limitations on the class of spells. Customization galore.
Your 4e black dragon can:
(swamp) walk, fly or swim
Is resistant (not immune?) to acid, is reasonably Perceptive and has darkvision.
Can breathe air or water; and gets a bonus against non-aquatic creatures in aquatic combat (should apply to all aquatic creatures, no?)
Can charge and bite (in earlier editions any creature could charge, and I've added it back to 5e, this is a free action for the dragon though).
It can end any dazing, stunning, or domination effect at the end of its turn.
Claw/claw/bite/breath weapon, or cast darkness
Gets an extra breath weapon attack when reduced to 50% of hit points for the first time
Can make a tail attack if another creature attacks it and misses.
It causes damage to those within a radius
So just between those two, the 5e version can make up to 5 attacks each round, compared to the 3 1/2 of the 4e edition. The 4e version only has resistance against the type of damage of its breath weapon (and blood), and it does damage to those around it each time it's hit after it is below 50% of hit points. Oh, and the 5e dragon might have scared away a good number of it's opponents, and has up to 3 spells that it can use as well.
For the sake of comparison, the 4e green dragon gains a flyby attack instead of a charge, and a charm effect that moves somebody (huh?).
Looking at the black dragon again, you must have grabbed the D&D Essentials version? I'm looking in the 4e MM and both the green and black dragon have a frightful presence, and they have 2 action points, which grants an extra action, so they do get more attacks than I originally noted.
But my point is that they really aren't that different, it's just the presentation of the stat blocks. However, there are some design changes that I object to:
1. Why can't all dragons do a fly-by attack or a charge? This seems to be a limitation to differentiate them perhaps?
2. The charm effect that moves somebody bugs me. If it's a charm, then give me a charm. Basically, this is a combat-oriented ability designed around the fact that movement and positioning is a big thing in 4e.
My other comments earlier still apply - why no tail sweep unless somebody misses, why the acidic blood only at bloodied (which isn't in the MM version).
In fact, the only difference I see between the 4e black and green dragon is resistance and breath weapon, and a movement/attack option, and a single spell-like effect. In my view, the movement/attack option and the spell-like effects (really spells), should be available to
all dragons, giving you further customizability.
So sure, the presentation of the earlier editions may not have been as clear as the 4e, but they actually gave you more options and more abilities, and 5e does as well. I bring forward most of the missing abilities from earlier editions to maintain continuity in my world, and that's also why I consider not including new abilities that are added in each successive edition. Thus, my dragons are customized.
But I still go back to the design, it's both more restrictive and often adds abilities or elements that I don't want/need. For example, any ability that shifts a creature is meaningless in our campaign, because we don't use the 4e combat system
In which case why do you have statblocks at all? If statblocks took up a couple of paragraphs per monster and didn't excite me I'd dump them as not fit for purpose. 4e statblocks tell me how monsters behave when the rubber meets the road - but at no other time. They make monsters move differently (just ask any 4e player who's met a kobold infestation and been swarmed by the annoying little pests).
And here you have the cart before the horse. The statblock doesn't control how you portray a monster. How you portray a monster, how it acts, and how it moves controls the statblock. You work out what you want the monster to do under physical pressure, turn that into powers, and write that down, testing it against some very simple formulae. And again I consider this a miserable failure. A good example in 4e would be the difference between goblins and kobolds. Both small, weak creatures - and in most editions of D&D you can barely tell them apart. In 4e? A kobold gets a free shift (a free 5ft step every turn) and you're going to end up swarmed and hamstrung by the little @%$&s. Meanwhile the more cowardly goblins get to shift after you've missed one. And gnomes? Get to turn invisible when you try and hit them.
A shift is meaningless in my campaign as we don't use these combat rules, whether its before or after.
The 5e abilities - Pack Tactics which highlights your swarm notion in that they get a benefit to their attack if they do so as a group, and Nimble Escape which highlights the goblin's ability to run away or hide. Both of these (the 4e and 5e versions) play into the general description that the monsters have had for years. I don't have an issue with those types of things, although I think that the 5e abilities are more elegant than the shift mechanic because it doesn't require a certain type of game play (a battle map with rules that include shifting).
Both Pack Tactics and Nimble Escape would work with 4e, and 3e for that matter, perhaps a little less so with earlier editions, but still workable. The shift mechanic only works in 4e and 3.5e, and may 5e if you're using minis and battle mats.
But the gnome is a perfect example. Gnomes don't just turn invisible in my world. And certainly not when you try to attack them. These types of abilities are the ones that really bug me. And 5e has continued the trend in some ways, particularly with a number of teleport 30' or pact weapons. They just don't fit my campaign.
And 4e was very balanced for combat, so taking away an ability because it didn't fit our world could have significant consequences. This applied to 3.5e as well.
Which is why the default of claw/claw/bite/wing buffet/wing buffet/tail slap is so silly.
And 4e does this. All dragons fly, have action recovery, and have instinctive actions. They are terrifying. And they are terrifying because they are overwhelming and powerful. But what their instinctive actions are differs.
First off, why is it silly? Is it any less terrifying that all lions or sharks bite? Not if you're on the receiving end. Dragons (in D&D anyway), have those attacks. They also have breath weapons, and some other special abilities. In fact, now that I'm looking more closely here's what I see in 4e:
Black - Cloud of Darkness, Vitriolic Spray, and Acid Gloom Zone
Blue - Thunderclap, Lightining Burst
Green - Luring Glare and Mind Poison
There aren't that many differences, and honestly fewer than earlier editions. But more importantly (from my perspective) they
changed. In 4e they dropped a bunch of abilities, and added some others that I just don't like. The abilities they added were frequently created specifically for the new combat system (auras, shifts, etc.). Even without that, they often didn't fit the lore of my world.
And ultimately, that's all I'm saying. That I don't think 4e "did monsters better." Maybe they did stat blocks better, so if you drop the 2e dragons into a 4e stat block, then fine. But it's not the stat blocks, it's the monster design that changed and, in my opinion, and for my campaign, not for the better.
I don't even believe you believe this. I don't believe that you don't think that your weapon choice tells you nothing about personality. I don't believe that you don't think that your spell choice tells you nothing about personality. I don't believe that you believe what you are good at and what you train and practice tells you nothing about personality.
Or do you genuinely believe that working at things does absolutely nothing at all to reflect what you care about? And what you do and what you practice and what you learn to do well has nothing to do with personality?
There's another thread, in which somebody essentially said that another DM was using gnolls wrong because all gnolls have longbows. Not in my world they don't. Some might use longbows. But they don't all just use longbows because that's the weapon they decided to put in the stat block.
I totally believe what I said. I don't think a monster stat block says any more about personality than the Fighter class says about a character's personality. An NPC stat block is different.
Yes, weapon choice could tell you something about your personality. But not all orcs use the same weapons. So not all orcs have the same personalities. On the other hand, it could be that the weapon happens to be the one he recovered from the last poor soul the orc killed with a rock.
Only certain weapons are available to my characters in their home town. And learning a proficiency is actually something that we have a check for (like in earlier editions there is a chance to learn a spell). This is because I don't like weapon and armor restrictions based on class.
So you can be a wizard who wants to wear plate armor, and have the means financially to do so, but find that you just don't have the skill to wear it properly. So you're stuck with mail instead. The wizard's personality says plate, but the realities of the world said otherwise.
Spell choice might tell you about personality (if you're a cleric, bard, or sorcerer), but probably much less if you're a wizard and the spells you have available are the ones your mentor gave you and those you have found.
Regardless, I don't want the monster description dictating that all black dragons have only these spells. And innate special abilities don't really tell you anything either. They tell you what they can do, but not what a specific creature
will do with them. In real life, we often have abilities and things that we're very good at, and yet we don't focus on those. Our personality often leads us in directions other than our innate abilities. For example, not everybody tall necessarily likes or plays basketball. In addition, the world also often makes decisions for us. It's very common for people to go to college with one major, and work in a field that is not related to their major at all. The selection in their major is often more central to their personality then their selection of job, because finding a job can be difficult. The job that somebody is currently engaged in may not be the final selection either.
So no, I don't think that stat blocks, other than those for a specific individual NPC (dragon, human, or whatever) should tell you anything about their personality. It simply tells you the basic abilities they have to work with. For something like an orc, you may choose to run them mostly with the same personality, or probably more accurately, with little or no personality.
