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

[mamba]

It always baffles me to see people playing a game of imagination complaining that they have to use their imagination during the game.

you can be baffled about whatever you want to, I have not seen an explanation for the ability yet that I liked, including the one in this thread. It's not that I cannot come up with 'something', 'something' just isn't enough for me. Many others do not appear to have that problem, particularly the 'I never even think about how it is done, all I care about is that it is interesting' crowd

 

[FitzTheRuke]

that is why I had no issue with that being combined for the Lion (back when this first came up), for dragons it has different reach and different damage, not just damage type

Different reach? Why?

that is what Rend does though

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. To me, it is not appreciably different from having the monk have unarmed strike instead of punch/kick/headbutt.

because I want it to make sense, not just some BS I have to invent to excuse its existence

Yes. I get that. What I don't get is why you think that it doesn't make sense. Again, I haven't read it recently, so I might agree with you if I did, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't make sense. It's a conjured pool of poison, right? How's that different from any sort of conjuration?

there isn't another one to my knowledge, what are you thinking of?

I wasn't thinking of anything specific. I was just wondering if you reflected on it, if you'd find something else.

Because someone claimed it is 4e-ish? I could not care less about that. I have no experience with 4e, I assume it would not have been for me, I assume it was a good system regardless. I've been using Bloodied for a while now

Nah, I don't care about that either. I mean, sure, I liked (parts of) 4e, but it doesn't bother me if you don't like it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

'I never even think about how it is done, all I care about is that it is interesting' crowd

I'm not sure that this crowd you're talking about actually exists. Just because they like that they find it interesting, and feel that they can come up with how it's done in a way that satisfies them, doesn't mean that they don't think about it.

 

[Hussar]

you can be baffled about whatever you want to, I have not seen an explanation for the ability yet that I liked, including the one in this thread. It's not that I cannot come up with 'something', 'something' just isn't enough for me. Many others do not appear to have that problem, particularly the 'I never even think about how it is done, all I care about is that it is interesting' crowd

But, that's the point I was making. You come up with explanations all the time for all sorts of abilities. It's not like D&D makes any sense most of the time when you scratch below the surface. From the laughable fact that being hit by something as big as an elephant doesn't actually hurt you (you suffer no actual penalties for being clawed by a dragon, other than ablate a small fraction of your HP) to how things fly, to various other goodies. We do it all the time.

You're complaining about the 7th impossible thing before breakfast while having zero problem with the first six. How do green dragons have miasma? Well, dragons are very magical. I would assume that the air around a green dragon wouldn't be the purest. The dragon, when hit by something or uses it's legendary save, focuses on whatever just hit it, and all those poisonous vapours surround that target. It's a magical ability. Not really too hard to picture. The dragon is controlling the very air around it and that allows it to poison targets.

How is that hard to envision?

 

[mamba]

Different reach? Why?

I am telling you what is in the 2014 MM

Yes. I get that. What I don't get is why you think that it doesn't make sense.

because I have not found a way for it to make sense to me yet

I wasn't thinking of anything specific. I was just wondering if you reflected on it, if you'd find something else.

no, it's about not liking abilities I cannot think a good explanation for

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure that this crowd you're talking about actually exists

admittedly I am extrapolating from a small sample size

I think in a game of "never have I ever," I would win with "Wonder how a monster does that."

 

[mamba]

But, that's the point I was making. You come up with explanations all the time for all sorts of abilities. It's not like D&D makes any sense most of the time when you scratch below the surface.

well, this is too close to the surface for me then

It's a magical ability

yeah, and I do not like that this is the only explanation all that much

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm pretty sure that they ARE designed exactly as you describe would be ideal. You just don't like the results.

Actually, I like 5e monsters fine, mostly (not of fan of MMoM-style casters. I was just discussing monster creation theory.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When did that happen? Which edition?

Perhaps none. Does that invalidate the question?

 

[Micah Sweet]

you can be baffled about whatever you want to, I have not seen an explanation for the ability yet that I liked, including the one in this thread. It's not that I cannot come up with 'something', 'something' just isn't enough for me. Many others do not appear to have that problem, particularly the 'I never even think about how it is done, all I care about is that it is interesting' crowd

The idea, "just come up with something acceptable to you to validate the mechanics" is to my mind exactly the problem. It makes the mechanics more important than the fiction.