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

[Micah Sweet]

Obviously it wasn’t universally liked

I have a hard time letting a popularity argument pass by unchallenged, sorry.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.)

Those are problems with the specific numbers, not with the general design. We also know now that the HP problem was due to a last-minute across-the-board change.

 

[mamba]

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

to each their own I guess, I am not saying it is limited to claw / bite / breath weapon, my problem is that these I can all explain as part of what the creature is, I cannot do that with the miasma, that is a spell / magic

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Those are problems with the specific numbers, not with the general design. We also know now that the HP problem was due to a last-minute across-the-board change.

I know. Many problems were due to doing everything last minute.

The most terrifying thing was Chris Perkins (i guess) in a video where he wanted to showcase how brutes are great melee characters... and then found the ogre which did more damage at range than melee.

The problem woth general design in my opinion is that numbers were not tied to stats but just level, role and status (minion, normal, elite, solo)*.

I find that fundamentally flawed.

But since that is easily left out, one can appreciate the rest.

*I was never against roles to be honest. But equippment needs to inform players how hard enemies are to hit. But since 4e ditched all that woth 1/2 level bonus to AC, that all does not matter anyway...
so maybe not the monster desogn was fundamentally flawed but the game design based on 1/2 bonus to everything. This is of course my opinion and conclusion from having played 4e for its complete life span.

 

[Reynard]

Everyone has their own preferences regarding the degree to which they prefer narrative elements versus gameplay elements to control design (not just in monsters, but that is what we are talking about here). But the fact is that for the vast majority of GMs, it is easier to modify the narrative elements successfully than the gameplay ones. Therefore, I think it is a net positive for the game designers to focus on mechanics.

I can (and have) called ogres mutant orcs, the children of hags and nobles, and dark magic humunculi. None of those aspects affected their statblocks overmuch.

 

[mamba]

Fart gun!

more like lobbing a spitball, but that is exactly it, there is no explanation that comes to mind that makes sense

If it exuded the miasma, sure, but it appearing (up to) 90 feet away…

 

[Micah Sweet]

Everyone has their own preferences regarding the degree to which they prefer narrative elements versus gameplay elements to control design (not just in monsters, but that is what we are talking about here). But the fact is that for the vast majority of GMs, it is easier to modify the narrative elements successfully than the gameplay ones. Therefore, I think it is a net positive for the game designers to focus on mechanics.

I can (and have) called ogres mutant orcs, the children of hags and nobles, and dark magic humunculi. None of those aspects affected their statblocks overmuch.

IMO, if you start with narrative elements and then design gameplay to match, a lot of that problem goes away.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know. Many problems were due to doing everything last minute.

The most terrifying thing was Chris Perkins (i guess) in a video where he wanted to showcase how brutes are great melee characters... and then found the ogre which did more damage at range than melee.

The problem woth general design in my opinion is that numbers were not tied to stats but just level, role and status (minion, normal, elite, solo)*.

I find that fundamentally flawed.

But since that is easily left out, one can appreciate the rest.

*I was never against roles to be honest. But equippment needs to inform players how hard enemies are to hit. But since 4e ditched all that woth 1/2 level bonus to AC, that all does not matter anyway...
so maybe not the monster desogn was fundamentally flawed but the game design based on 1/2 bonus to everything. This is of course my opinion and conclusion from having played 4e for its complete life span.

Yeah, I hated the 1/2 level bonus to everything, and bounded accuracy was what sold me on 5e. There’s a lot about 4e I miss, but that’s one aspect I would never want to go back to.

 

[SteveC]

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...

I think in a game of "never have I ever," I would win with "Wonder how a monster does that." To me the whole thing is "Is this interesting." Obviously others disagree but if I had to choose between a fun and interesting monster that had wacky powers and one that was a bag of hit points, I'd choose the fun one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think in a game of "never have I ever," I would win with "Wonder how a monster does that." To me the whole thing is "Is this interesting." Obviously others disagree but if I had to choose between a fun and interesting monster that had wacky powers and one that was a bag of hit points, I'd choose the fun one.

While I would choose the one that makes the most logical sense in the setting (ideally also being interesting).

We can thread this needle.