D&D (2024) Take A Closer Look At The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide

Wizards of the Coast has just shared a video delving into the upcoming One D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, due for release in 2024.

​

Scroll down to post #4, below, for a more detailed text summary!

• Chapter 1 -- basic concepts
• Chapter 2 -- Advice, common issues
• Chapter 3 -- Rules cyclopedia
• Chapter 4 -- Adventure building
• Chapter 5 -- Campaign building
• Chapter 6 -- Cosmology
• Chapter 7 -- Magic items
• Chapter 8 -- 'A surprise'
• Appendices -- maps, lore glossary

 

[doctorhook]

Actually, I lot of people talk about how good 4e monster design was (a bit exaggerated IMO) and in particular Threats from the Nentir Vale. I do agree that book is probably the high water mark, or close to it, for 4e monster design.

You’re right that people generally do talk about 4E monster design generally, but I just meant that among all the talk in this thread about mechanically-interesting dragon design, 4E’s contribution wasn’t being mentioned.

Also, FYI the “Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale” is a separate product from the one I was talking about. Threats to the Nentir Vale was well-received because it was a monster book deeply entwined with a a specific setting, so it had lots of named creatures and lore… but it was somewhat less useful as a generic monster book. The Monster Vault that I meant was published 7 months earlier and takes the place of a generic monster manual for 4E Essentials; most of the creatures within were total rebuilds (NOT reprints) of MM1 monsters, including chromatic dragons. And this product was criminally overlooked by 4E players at the time.

I would say the monster math was improved, but not "nailed down." At high levels and for solos, the monsters were terrible under powered. Blog42 did a great article on this: how, relatively speaking, epic level 4e monsters were weaker than heroic tier 4e monsters. The math is pretty straightforward and MM3 only helped very slightly. I used the revised monster level damage in blog42 for my 4e monsters and they ran much better.

Actually, by MM3 they back away from the roles a bit. You will notice the changed the monster math so the roles were mechanically (from a numbers standpoint) more similar. I don't know that they really added many abilities that made them better suited to their role either. They typical had those from the get go, IIRC.

I tried looking up Blog42, but Google didn’t have anything for me. Was it called something else? I recall some monster math articles from those days, but not the details, so I won’t comment until I can confirm those memories.

Anyway, I’m wondering if your timeline is a bit skewed. Perhaps I misunderstood, but the truth is MM3 was published 6 months earlier than Monster Vault. IIRC, Essentials did use the MM3 monster math as a basis (hence what I meant by “nailed down”—it was the last iteration officially published, I believe).

However, you’re quite wrong about them “backing away from roles” by this point, at least if Monster Vault is any indication. Take the statblocks of the MM1 Elder chromatic dragons alongside the Monster Vault elder chromatic dragons: you’ll see major differences in their capabilities that bring them much closer to their stated roles, and also include features that are clear precursors to legendary actions. Monster Vault was leaps ahead of most of 4E, and unfortunately I don’t think even the few subsequent 4E products truly built on this.

I do agree the variety between different types of dragons was superior in 4e, with 1 caveat: You get that and sometimes more when you consider the lair actions 5e provides for each dragon type.

Not really. In a lot of ways 5e dragons are mechanically superior to 4e dragons. Overall, I think they are about on par.

Legendary actions / mythic actions / legendary resistance / mythic trait are arguably better for solo play than the 4e solos which got 2 action points, and one "instinct action" by MM3 to deal with action economy and lock-down. If you include 5e lair actions, and you should, 5e dragons are likely superior than 4e dragons (and this is without including spellcasting variants). With all the options turned on, 5e dragons have superior action economy and lockdown prevention to 4e dragons, and similar type differention diversity

Just to reiterate my point above, the Monster Vault dragons are definitely a step up from the dragons you will have seen in other 4E monster books. That said, you’re not wrong that including legendary and lair actions when considering 5E’s dragons definitely levels the comparison. Taken together, 5E’s dragons do have a somewhat better action economy, but the Monster Vault dragons I believe are still more resistant to being locked-down/incapacitated due to the fact that they never run out of legendary resistance like the 5E dragons do.

It’s worth acknowledging here that we’re quibbling about the merits of two very close iterations of a similar design. There are surely many similarities. I just really like pointing the 4E’s Monster Vault in particular, because even among 4E fans that product was unfortunately ignored.

My final point: I dislike lair actions, and it’s a perception issue. I like what they do mechanically, but I dislike that they’re tied to the lair rather than specifically the monster itself. For example, red dragons in 5E can cause earthquakes, magma eruptions, and summon volcanic gasses—the volcanic theme is there, but these aren’t iconic to the red dragon. One also wonders if the same dragon has no such powers if encountered atop a stony or fortress castle? And can any other large creature (a fire giant? a blue dragon?) do the same things if placed in the same lair? Other examples exist too: beholders can shoot eye lasers from the walls… not exactly an iconic beholder power. I think lair actions are interesting but ultimately a flavour miss.

 

[Shatargat]

They've got that chapter now. It's how they refer to talking about the planes.

Since I dropped running D&D, it's not my personal concern, but I have an extreme huge doubt about them to put actually useful information in that chapter. They failed on it in the first DMG, and other books that related with planar information.

 

[dave2008]

Those are big-ass dragons.

Don't get me wrong; this is superb art, among the best I've seen! But even if D&D dragons never were paragons of realism, the size of these guys is starting to stretch suspension of disbelief beyond critical point of rupture.

Did you play 2e? Dragons were something like 300 feet long! Here is a red dragon: 354' long and I guess that doesn't even include the neck?

 

[Tutara]

Cubicle 7's upcoming d20 corebook has their travel system in it for sure and I wouldn't be surprised if it had more of that wishlist as well.

I am definitely excited for what Cubicle 7 is up to. I really like their work on WFRP. Broken Weave looks ace, and Uncharted Journeys is interesting as well.

 

[mamba]

Those are big-ass dragons.

Don't get me wrong; this is superb art, among the best I've seen! But even if D&D dragons never were paragons of realism, the size of these guys is starting to stretch suspension of disbelief beyond critical point of rupture.

the red one looks fine when compared to the people in front. The blue looks big because it is a Gnome fortress

 

[dave2008]

Also, FYI the “Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale” is a separate product from the one I was talking about. Threats to the Nentir Vale was well-received because it was a monster book deeply entwined with a a specific setting, so it had lots of named creatures and lore… but it was somewhat less useful as a generic monster book. The Monster Vault that I meant was published 7 months earlier and takes the place of a generic monster manual for 4E Essentials; most of the creatures within were total rebuilds (NOT reprints) of MM1 monsters, including chromatic dragons. And this product was criminally overlooked by 4E players at the time.

You are correct. I think the comment applies to both books really. Though regarding dragons it was a disappointment that the monster vault didn't update the ancient dragons

I tried looking up Blog42, but Google didn’t have anything for me. Was it called something else? I recall some monster math articles from those days, but not the details, so I won’t comment until I can confirm those memories.

Sorry it was called DMG 42 and it was a blog - my mistake! Here is the damage analysis:
Level 1 Damage forever

Anyway, I’m wondering if your timeline is a bit skewed. Perhaps I misunderstood, but the truth is MM3 was published 6 months earlier than Monster Vault. IIRC, Essentials did use the MM3 monster math as a basis (hence what I meant by “nailed down”—it was the last iteration officially published, I believe).

I understand the timeline. My disagree that MM3 math and beyond is nailed down. It still didn't work at epic levels (and before really). It was better, but not nailed down.

However, you’re quite wrong about them “backing away from roles” by this point, at least if Monster Vault is any indication. Take the statblocks of the MM1 Elder chromatic dragons alongside the Monster Vault elder chromatic dragons: you’ll see major differences in their capabilities that bring them much closer to their stated roles,

My point was two-fold:

1. Monster roles were expressed in the MM. They might have been improved by the MV (IDK), but they are there in the MM. If you say the abilities leaned into the roles more in 4e, I don't doubt you,. My real argument was...
2. The DMG 2 / MM3 monster math really flattened the math difference between the various rules. In the monster creation guidelines in the MM1 there was a lot of variance in AC, HP, attack bonus, and damage. Most of this was removed in the revised math. Not completely, but the delta was flattened. That is what I meant by lessening the impact of roles.

Ultimately it is a bit a ying and yang, less numbers support for roles, but more ability support.

and also include features that are clear precursors to legendary actions.

Yes, I even called them out. IIRC, they were called "Instinctive Actions" in 4e. They are simplier than legendary actions, but not as flexibly. I have designed a few 5e monsters with them, but ultimately I prefer legendary actions.

Monster Vault was leaps ahead of most of 4E, and unfortunately I don’t think even the few subsequent 4E products truly built on this.

It was a good book. I still have my copy!

Just to reiterate my point above, the Monster Vault dragons are definitely a step up from the dragons you will have seen in other 4E monster books.

Yes, it was great improvement over the MM designs.

That said, you’re not wrong that including legendary and lair actions when considering 5E’s dragons definitely levels the comparison. Taken together, 5E’s dragons do have a somewhat better action economy, but the Monster Vault dragons I believe are still more resistant to being locked-down/incapacitated due to the fact that they never run out of legendary resistance like the 5E dragons do.

I agree in general. Though the 5e design allows for a superior solution, like what level up has down with the Elite Recovery Legendary Action. I am personally not a fan of legendary resistance for most monsters and use Elite Recovery or similar options in my monster designs.

It’s worth acknowledging here that we’re quibbling about the merits of two very close iterations of a similar design. There are surely many similarities.

I agree!

I just really like pointing the 4E’s Monster Vault in particular, because even among 4E fans that product was unfortunately ignored.

Interesting. That is not my experience. I think most 4e fans I know love that book. However, I don't discuss it much now so I could be out of touch.

My final point: I dislike lair actions, and it’s a perception issue. I like what they do mechanically, but I dislike that they’re tied to the lair rather than specifically the monster itself. For example, red dragons in 5E can cause earthquakes, magma eruptions, and summon volcanic gasses—the volcanic theme is there, but these aren’t iconic to the red dragon. One also wonders if the same dragon has no such powers if encountered atop a stony or fortress castle? And can any other large creature (a fire giant? a blue dragon?) do the same things if placed in the same lair? Other examples exist too: beholders can shoot eye lasers from the walls… not exactly an iconic beholder power. I think lair actions are interesting but ultimately a flavour miss.

I generally agree. Back when I ran MM dragons and not my own I allowed ancient dragons to spend a legendary action to use a lair action even if they were not in their lair. Personally I would like the dragons to have abilities like these in their statblock and then have different lair actions too. However, a quick fix was to just let the dragon spend a legendary action on them.

 

[TwoSix]

That sure feels like the 2024 art director was impressed by the Chroma Collective in the most recent season of Vox Machina.

Looks to me like they played some Elden Ring.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Looks to me like they played some Elden Ring.

Honestly, I would hope folks at WotC would be familiar with both properties.

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly, I would hope folks at WotC would be familiar with both properties.

Certainly possible, but not something I would bet on. A lot of folks in the PNW have very differentiated hobbies. Entirely possible that WotC folk spend more time riding bikes or hiking than playing video games.

 

[doctorhook]

You are correct. I think the comment applies to both books really. Though regarding dragons it was a disappointment that the monster vault didn't update the ancient dragons

Sorry it was called DMG 42 and it was a blog - my mistake! Here is the damage analysis:
Level 1 Damage forever

I understand the timeline. My disagree that MM3 math and beyond is nailed down. It still didn't work at epic levels (and before really). It was better, but not nailed down.

My point was two-fold:

1. Monster roles were expressed in the MM. They might have been improved by the MV (IDK), but they are there in the MM. If you say the abilities leaned into the roles more in 4e, I don't doubt you,. My real argument was...
2. The DMG 2 / MM3 monster math really flattened the math difference between the various rules. In the monster creation guidelines in the MM1 there was a lot of variance in AC, HP, attack bonus, and damage. Most of this was removed in the revised math. Not completely, but the delta was flattened. That is what I meant by lessening the impact of roles.

Ultimately it is a bit a ying and yang, less numbers support for roles, but more ability support.

Yes, I even called them out. IIRC, they were called "Instinctive Actions" in 4e. They are simplier than legendary actions, but not as flexibly. I have designed a few 5e monsters with them, but ultimately I prefer legendary actions.

It was a good book. I still have my copy!

Yes, it was great improvement over the MM designs.

I agree in general. Though the 5e design allows for a superior solution, like what level up has down with the Elite Recovery Legendary Action. I am personally not a fan of legendary resistance for most monsters and use Elite Recovery or similar options in my monster designs.

I agree!

Interesting. That is not my experience. I think most 4e fans I know love that book. However, I don't discuss it much now so I could be out of touch.

I generally agree. Back when I ran MM dragons and not my own I allowed ancient dragons to spend a legendary action to use a lair action even if they were not in their lair. Personally I would like the dragons to have abilities like these in their statblock and then have different lair actions too. However, a quick fix was to just let the dragon spend a legendary action on them.

Cheers, friend. I don’t think we’re so far apart on this.