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

[mamba]

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

The simplest one is 2014 had bite and claw attacks, now we have a rend attack.

The more relevant ones are things like the Corrosive Miasma of the Green Dragon that can appear anywhere within 90 feet of the dragon. I can understand a breath weapon, but that is not one

 

[mamba]

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

I think you can have interesting abilities without having to wonder 'how the heck does it do that'. The problem is not that the ability is interesting...

 

[Tonguez]

yeah as much as I didnt like 4e its Monster design was great and helpful to DMs, I'd encourage their return (if only we could get grittier combat mechanics too)

The simplest one is 2014 had bite and claw attacks, now we have a rend attack.

The more relevant ones are things like the Corrosive Miasma of the Green Dragon that can appear anywhere within 90 feet of the dragon. I can understand a breath weapon, but that is not one

Personally I love Lair Actions/Reactions like Corrosive Miasma - it tells the story of a Hyperintelligent magical creature that understands and dominates its environment to the extent that it can either set traps or utilise natural hazards against opponents. It doesnt need to be a basic boring Bite/Claw/Breath Weapon - it can be a tactic that shows how the creature lives in its world

 

[Charlaquin]

4e’s monster design was generally pretty well-liked, even among folks who didn’t otherwise like 4e.

 

[Retreater]

As great as 4e was from a tactical skirmish game perspective (and I just completed DMing a 9 month campaign a few months ago - so the experience is fresh), it didn't do the best at presenting creatures in the context of a world or mythology - compared to the games of the TSR era.
Like, I used to be able to run a mystery adventure based around a doppelganger. In 4e, the shapechange ability was an encounter power that lasted one round. It's just another enemy that posed a moderately interesting tactical challenge for one round and did extra damage if it flanked you.
In 5E, they didn't go back to considering the creatures' role in the world, society, environments, etc (which was something I loved in the 2E MM - which I still think is the greatest of any edition). We had stat blocks, but not very well organized, balanced, or interesting.
I understand 5.24 is taking some steps to improve on my 5.14 complaints. Still, I have no interest to get it until if/when I'm actually going to run D&D again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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"?

The question is: do you design starting with modeling a creature and giving it abilities that make sense for it to have, or do you start with a mechanical role in the game and design a creature to fit that role? Is that happening here? You're not going to get concensus on that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e’s monster design was generally pretty well-liked, even among folks who didn’t otherwise like 4e.

I never liked the principle behind it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The more relevant ones are things like the Corrosive Miasma of the Green Dragon that can appear anywhere within 90 feet of the dragon. I can understand a breath weapon, but that is not one

Fart gun!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4e’s monster design was generally pretty well-liked, even among folks who didn’t otherwise like 4e.

Later 4e monster design.*
MM 1 was very very bad.

(Too many hp. Too low damage. Too high AC for soldiers, not to mention the abundance of errors.)

Later Monster books are actually very good. I hope the new book has taken a few of the good parts.

*I did not like stats strictly by level and role instead of equippment and stats. That was sadly very boring. I hope that part is left out.

 

[Charlaquin]

I never liked the principle behind it.

Obviously it wasn’t universally liked