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

[EzekielRaiden]

I have no problem with that. I kinda hate re-skinning anyway.

I'm not at all surprised to hear that you dislike reskinning, but I am surprised that you would be opposed to allowing DMs the creative freedom to modify monsters in order to better fit the context in which they appear. I would have expected that to be a right you would proudly defend to the hilt, since a focus on naturalism above (nearly) all else would seem to require that (say) "Adult Gold Dragon" be not absolutely, perfectly 100% identical in every single campaign it appears no matter what. I would have expected that to be a pretty major offense to your sensibilities. Would you be willing to go into why you prefer such uniformity across all campaigns everywhere?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Heh, I havent done any wind tunnel tests on the Gold Dragon aerodynamics.

Still, I expect it to slither thru the air, with the fin along its back enabling it to wind thru air.

It is somewhat like a buoyant blimp in the form of a wriggling snake.

I mean, I wouldn't expect you to. I still feel the criticism stands: if these things are supposed to be there for aerodynamic control, they're going to do rather a poor job of it with just one set right at the front, and the "frill" along the body isn't going to cut it.

It also doesn't explain why Golds, and only Golds, have faux-wings exclusively for stability/directional control, while all other dragons have, y'know, actual wings that do actual wing things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not at all surprised to hear that you dislike reskinning, but I am surprised that you would be opposed to allowing DMs the creative freedom to modify monsters in order to better fit the context in which they appear. I would have expected that to be a right you would proudly defend to the hilt, since a focus on naturalism above (nearly) all else would seem to require that (say) "Adult Gold Dragon" be not absolutely, perfectly 100% identical in every single campaign it appears no matter what. I would have expected that to be a pretty major offense to your sensibilities. Would you be willing to go into why you prefer such uniformity across all campaigns everywhere?

I don't see any reason you couldn't follow this philosophy while also encouraging DMs to make changes to the statblocks if they want to represent a similar but different creature. Include a list of abilities you can combine to make your own creatures or swap out for changes, but for the included statblocks I see no problem with starting from a place where "this is a standard ogre as our system defines it".

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not at all surprised to hear that you dislike reskinning, but I am surprised that you would be opposed to allowing DMs the creative freedom to modify monsters in order to better fit the context in which they appear. I would have expected that to be a right you would proudly defend to the hilt, since a focus on naturalism above (nearly) all else would seem to require that (say) "Adult Gold Dragon" be not absolutely, perfectly 100% identical in every single campaign it appears no matter what. I would have expected that to be a pretty major offense to your sensibilities. Would you be willing to go into why you prefer such uniformity across all campaigns everywhere?

Agreed. For anything sapient, "never use the same stats twice" is one of my core principles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see any reason you couldn't follow this philosophy while also encouraging DMs to make changes to the statblocks if they want to represent a similar but different creature. Include a list of abilities you can combine to make your own creatures or swap out for changes, but for the included statblocks I see no problem with starting from a place where "this is a standard ogre as our system defines it".

The point, as I had understood it, was that if you see ability X, you know for certain that you are fighting a Red Dragon or a Basilisk or whatever. That the abilities conclusively identify the creature, and the creature specifies exactly those abilities. Hence, a 1:1 correspondence. If and only if it has ability X, it is monster A.

That's why Charlaquin said (trimming to the bare necessities) "[P]layers should be able to tell what a monster is (or near enough to the mark) by fighting it, even if the DM doesn’t use its name or describe its appearance beyond minimum necessary detail." In other words, all that you need to know in order to conclusively identify that a creature is definitely a Behir is to see it use its abilities. Some slight leeway is allowed, but the core principle is that a creature should be singularly identified by its abilities. You'd never mistake a flamethrower tank for a red dragon or vice-versa, ever. You'd never conflate, say, a purple worm with a behir, even though both are reptilian beings with bluish-colored scales and some ability to eat people.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Agreed. For anything sapient, "never use the same stats twice" is one of my core principles.

I would not personally go that far, but I certainly think that keeping things fresh often requires avoiding reuse.

As an example, I would consider using a single statblock, mostly unmodified, as a creature goes from being an utterly terrifying barely-survivable fight at level 2 (say, against an ogre), to being merely the beefy leader of an enemy squad, to being a run-of-the-mill soldier, and only when it's become a "send in the reserves" en-mass thing would I change the statblock to a minion or "minion+" (creatures that require two hits to kill, and thus slot neatly into the "half-size" creature space between a Minion and a Standard creature.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point, as I had understood it, was that if you see ability X, you know for certain that you are fighting a Red Dragon or a Basilisk or whatever. That the abilities conclusively identify the creature, and the creature specifies exactly those abilities. Hence, a 1:1 correspondence. If and only if it has ability X, it is monster A.

That's why Charlaquin said (trimming to the bare necessities) "[P]layers should be able to tell what a monster is (or near enough to the mark) by fighting it, even if the DM doesn’t use its name or describe its appearance beyond minimum necessary detail." In other words, all that you need to know in order to conclusively identify that a creature is definitely a Behir is to see it use its abilities. Some slight leeway is allowed, but the core principle is that a creature should be singularly identified by its abilities. You'd never mistake a flamethrower tank for a red dragon or vice-versa, ever. You'd never conflate, say, a purple worm with a behir, even though both are reptilian beings with bluish-colored scales and some ability to eat people.

I was thinking more along the lines of signature abilities and a menu of options, such that a given combination of such would denote a specific monster, as displayed by copious example monsters.

I guess I didn't quite fully understand what I was agreeing to. I do, however, still hate reskinning.

 

[SteveC]

admittedly I am extrapolating from a small sample size

I will cop to this attitude. But at the same time: who am I to say what you should care about as a DM or a player? I've never had a problem explaining monster powers, and I say that as someone who ran a lot of 4E and likes the design of those monsters a ton.

My system of choice at the moment is PF2, so I see a lot of monsters who have unusual abilities, and I'd say they do a good job of explaining them.

Most monsters who are in a combat are alive for 2-3 rounds at the most. I want to concentrate on what's important to me when I'm running a game. But ... that's me. If it's important to you, I'd say stay away from the more whacky monsters and be more mechanical in descriptions. Whatever works. And you'll always have the 2014 MM to fall back on.

 

[dave2008]

I hope you are right. 4E had it's issues, but monster design wasn't one of them.

As someone who designed a lot of 4e monsters they did have some issues IMO. But everyone's needs are different.

 

[mamba]

I will cop to this attitude. But at the same thing: who am I to say what you should care about as a DM or a player?

Understood, we are good, I am not blaming you for having it either, we simply have different perspectives / preferences.

I'd say stay away from the more whacky monsters and be more mechanical in descriptions.

I usually do, not always, things can be mixed up too

Whatever works. And you'll always have the 2014 MM to fall back on.

yes, I am not saying that makes the green dragon unusable, I can handwave it as some kind of unexplainable magic (the dragon angrily shakes his head, you find yourself engulfed in a toxic cloud...' no real explanation as to how it happened), it simply is not my preference. 2024 has made it very clear that D&D is moving in a direction I do not like all that much. To me 2014 was already borderline, 2024 crossed that border for good

That does not mean I won't be taking a look at the 2024 MM, the 2014 monsters always needed some buffing