D&D (2024) Its till just me or is the 2024 MM heavily infused by more 4e influences?

First off the variants of creatures, it's not just Goblins, it's Goblin Minions & Goblin Hexers. It's not just Empyreans it's Empyrean Iotas (with the choice of fiend or celestial), it's not just Owlbears, but the Primeval Owlbears as well, etc..., that was very much a 4e thing.

They are also bringing bloodied back.

Increasing focus on high CR epic monsters.

More different powers.

They are bringing minions back at least in some form.

I probably missed some other examples.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's probably just you, but if it isn't: Good. Math aside*, 4e monsters were far more interesting to fight and easier to run than 5e ones are. It's one of the very few things that I miss about that edtion.

*(Much of the math for 4e monsters was borked until very late in the edition's life. But it was really easy to tweak, and other aspects of their monsters, and their statblocks, were very well designed.)
 

First off the variants of creatures, it's not just Goblins, it's Goblin Minions & Goblin Hexers. It's not just Empyreans it's Empyrean Iotas (with the choice of fiend or celestial), it's not just Owlbears, but the Primeval Owlbears as well, etc..., that was very much a 4e thing.

They are also bringing bloodied back.

Increasing focus on high CR epic monsters.

More different powers.

They are bringing minions back at least in some form.

I probably missed some other examples.
This has been a trend for a while. Even the 2014 MM had varieties of monsters and more books have added to it. For example there are 6 types of gnolls or 7 if you include the flind. And they have been adding interesting / different powers for years now (again check out the gnolls). So, yes, you are correct, but it is not new to the 2024 MM.
 

I hope you are right. 4E had it's issues, but monster design wasn't one of them. As Fitz pointed out, the math need some work, but the ideas--monsters being built differently from characters, different roles, interesting abilities/powers, etc. worked well. I'd go so far as to say the entire philosophy of encounter design in 4E was pretty good: potentially mixing in monsters, traps, and environmental hazards into an encounter is a solid idea. I think they were pretty eager to toss that baby out with the bathwater out back in 2014; it would be nice to see some of that get reintegrated.
 



In mindset yes.

In mechanics, no.

The backlash against 4e tactical heavy monsters was reimaged after 5es boring and weak usages of its simplistic model for monsters.
 


I don’t like that they become ‘gamier’. The 2014 ones are creatures, the 2024 ones are a collection of interesting abilities

I've never understood that argument. It was around during the 4e edition-wars, and I see that it is alive today.

I still don't get it.

The 2014 stat-blocks are a bunch of words and numbers that supposedly represent a creature. The 2024 ones are also a bunch of words and numbers that represent a creature.

What's the difference?
How does that difference make one a "creature" and the other a "collection of abilities"?
 

If that's true, I think it's a very good thing. When I see a creature that's just a basic stat block with hit points, defenses, and a basic attack, I think, "Why is this even here?" It would be a lot easier to just have a generic "humanoid" stat block with a set of different names and levels.

Having a creature that can do something interesting? Yes please!
 

Remove ads

Top