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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

That still sounds like it's going to make monster-design creativity pretty sharply limited. Maybe I'm just expecting rather high standards here, given the phrasing. Still, if you have to see and fully understand 3-4 abilities a monster has before you can even begin to identify it, I wouldn't see that as being a particularly good "abilities = identity" thing. I should think it would be much quicker than that. Especially since that means you can only really change one ability, if that, and still preserve the monster's identity. If an Ancient Red Dragon is identified by (say) fire breath, whirlwind (from its wings), a tail swipe, and a pillar of fire type thing, you're really only going to get to play with maybe one of those attacks without compromising its identity--and even that's going to be dicey, since if it doesn't get a wing attack (for example), it could be a salamander, whereas if it doesn't get a breath attack it could be a balrog. Etc.

When you can only count on getting 3-4 rounds to work with, and abilities are supposed to conclusively identify what you're facing, there's a pretty sharp limit to how much you can express creativity or monster uniqueness without breaking the bijective map between abilities and identities. But if you have to have it so that each distinct monster can be identified from just one or two category-specific things, e.g. dragons get breath attacks, now you're limited from the other direction, because you can't ever give anything a breath attack without people thinking it's some kind of dragon.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Would you care to share some examples of issues you encountered? I promise to not quibble or contradict. It is your experience, after all. If you encountered issues and I share your opinion of those issues, I'll be forearmed in case I ever actually run a 4e game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That still sounds like it's going to make monster-design creativity pretty sharply limited. Maybe I'm just expecting rather high standards here, given the phrasing. Still, if you have to see and fully understand 3-4 abilities a monster has before you can even begin to identify it, I wouldn't see that as being a particularly good "abilities = identity" thing. I should think it would be much quicker than that. Especially since that means you can only really change one ability, if that, and still preserve the monster's identity. If an Ancient Red Dragon is identified by (say) fire breath, whirlwind (from its wings), a tail swipe, and a pillar of fire type thing, you're really only going to get to play with maybe one of those attacks without compromising its identity--and even that's going to be dicey, since if it doesn't get a wing attack (for example), it could be a salamander, whereas if it doesn't get a breath attack it could be a balrog. Etc.

When you can only count on getting 3-4 rounds to work with, and abilities are supposed to conclusively identify what you're facing, there's a pretty sharp limit to how much you can express creativity or monster uniqueness without breaking the bijective map between abilities and identities.

I've never based monster design on how long PCs can be expected to interact with it. Too gamist. I'd rather over-design so I have everything I might need, and accept that there will always be unused material.

 

[dave2008]

Would you care to share some examples of issues you encountered? I promise to not quibble or contradict. It is your experience, after all. If you encountered issues and I share your opinion of those issues, I'll be forearmed in case I ever actually run a 4e game.

I have posted about them before so rather than do that again I will try to find that post and get back to you.

However, in short 4e only had quick monster creation rules. It never gave you a detailed account on how special features and effects change the difficulty of the monster. 4e had lots of conditions, but the 4e monster creation rules never address. You want to give your monster a stun effect, good luck figuring out what that means for the monster's difficulty.

Also, at higher levels monsters were seriously under powered. I ended up making my on monster damage table based on the DMG42 website table. It is posted here somewhere on EnWorld. The epic version (level 30-40) is in the downloads under 4e.

 

[SteveC]

I've never based monster design on how long PCs can be expected to interact with it. Too gamist. I'd rather over-design so I have everything I might need, and accept that there will always be unused material.

Back in the day when we were transitioning to 4E from 3.5, WotC did a great article about stat blocks and simplifying them. This was still in 3.5 mind you. They talked about all the stuff you could get rid of without affecting the experience at the table. I expect that would be something you wouldn't like, but for me, it had a great effect. I used to be that guy who prepared casters to be as effective as possible against the group using the very best spells from all the resources. It was just too much for me!

If I'm running a creature (say a spellcaster) who would normally have a ton of abilities, I'll give them cantrips or even spells appropriate to their level if it's appropriate. But then, I will also take abilities that are really spells but described as special abilities and let Counterspell or Dispel Magic affect them, so I am truly a rebel on both sides.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

2024 is higher magic than 2014 in general, it might not be worse in combat when it comes to the characters, but it is in the world in general, including monsters (see the dragons)

How? How is it higher magic, if seems near the same. And for sure not anymore than earlier D&D editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How? How is it higher magic, if seems near the same. And for sure not anymore than earlier D&D editions.

It is prevalence of magic, not sheer power.

 

[Corinnguard]

How? How is it higher magic, if seems near the same. And for sure not anymore than earlier D&D editions.

Let's just say that a native from a high magic setting would see magic as being very mundane and commonplace.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It is prevalence of magic, not sheer power.

How is it more prevalent?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Let's just say that a native from a high magic setting would see magic as being very mundane and commonplace.

Not anymore than it was in the past.