D&D 5E Living Dice Article: "Is It Really D&D Next?"

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, the 4e MM is weak on the descriptions, and it is fair to ding it on that. But it was extremely strong in other ways, in particular, why fighting monster X would likely be completely different from fighting somewhat similar monster Y.

In my experience, battles against different critters feel very different in 5e so far. It doesn't require much. Ogres deal lots of damage, kobolds die in droves, bugbears favor surprise tactics...

So it sounds like this aspect of 4e has been well preserved. Which is cool. I like that these things feel different in play.

 

[Piratecat]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.
...
...When you step back and look at the overall context into which that mechanic is used, the game looks much more like a modernized Basic/Expert D&D or a stripped-down 4e Essentials. At least it does to me.

The XP system is currently turned off, but let me say: good post.

 

[Dire Bare]

You're probably right. I don't get the rationale, though. Is the point to make it harder for new players to work out how the game functions?

While I think the explicit use of roles did help players know how to "correctly" play their characters, I think that it gave 4E a too "gamist" feel and made some folks feel straight-jacketed. That isn't necessarily the reality of the situation with 4E, but perception is important, more important than the actual game mechanics IMO.

Plus, we did fine without the labels before 4E, I'm sure we'll do fine without them in 5E. Assuming that the terms won't show up in the final PHB, which we really don't know yet of course.

 

[jadrax]

Also, traditionally, many classes fill the design space of more than one role. Being able to bolt on a role as a theme is a good step forward to more flexible classes.

 

[pemerton]

the 4e MM is weak on the descriptions, and it is fair to ding it on that. But it was extremely strong in other ways, in particular, why fighting monster X would likely be completely different from fighting somewhat similar monster Y.

Achieving these differences of creatures displayed in play is, in my view, a real breakthrough for D&D. And for me, it's worth any amount of verbiage telling me what the creature is like. I don't need flavour text telling me that the wight can take on a fearsome and gruesome appearance that makes others recoil in horror, when instead I have a Horrid Visage power in the statblock that causes a [Fear] close blast vs Will delivering psyhic damage and a push.

When I recently statted up some hobgoblin phalanxes (as Huge and Gargantuan swarms) I gave them the ability to recover 10 hp as a free action, with the trigger being that a hobgoblin minion is adjacent, and the power use also eliminating that minion as well as providing the heal.

On my crappy pen and paper battlemap, the phalanx was just a big boardgame counter, and the minion a small plastic token. But when I used that power, it reinforced more than any description could that the PCs were fighting a unit of hobgoblins, whose members were dying with every hit taken, and which would reinforce itself in desperation by impressing any hobgoblin soldier who happened to come adjacent.

I want my story elements to express themselves mechanically. D&D has always had this to at least some degree (werewolves can't be hit except by silver weapons, AD&D dragons cause fear when they fly overhead, etc). But 4e took it to a whole new level.

In my experience, battles against different critters feel very different in 5e so far. It doesn't require much. Ogres deal lots of damage, kobolds die in droves, bugbears favor surprise tactics...

So it sounds like this aspect of 4e has been well preserved. Which is cool. I like that these things feel different in play.

I didn't find the monster descriptions as inspiring as I do the 4e ones, but (i) the 4e ones are much more nicely formatted, making it easier (for me at least) to read the way they are likely to play off the presentation of the stats, and (ii) I haven't actually played with/GMed the playtest monsters.

I'm glad to hear a report that they play differently.

 

[Mercule]

Which is why imo the 4e Monster's Vault was the perfection of the system. The solid statblocks that 4e was known for combined with solid fluff text.

I abandoned 4e shortly after PHB2, so I never saw the Vault (presumably, it was part of the Essentials line). As I think back, I do believe I very much liked some aspects of the Monster Manual. The lack of any meaningful level of description was an insurmountable negative, to me. If the Vault fixed that, then it probably was at the top of the D&D monster book heap.

 

[jadrax]

I have only glanced through it, but I remember thinking it looked much better than my 4th edition MM.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I didn't find the monster descriptions as inspiring as I do the 4e ones, but (i) the 4e ones are much more nicely formatted, making it easier (for me at least) to read the way they are likely to play off the presentation of the stats, and (ii) I haven't actually played with/GMed the playtest monsters.

I find the "running the X's" blurbs in the adventure are the most useful. I haven't even looked at that monster book when I've been running the adventure, and it's been working stellarly. Each group has one sort of "special ability" that becomes relevant, and it's specifically called out and unique (rather than kind of burried in rulespeak like a lot of 4e's combat abilities were). It's slick, simple, and delightful, in my experience.

 

[avin]

Yes. I love 3e, but I think that the 4e Monster Manual is probably the best example of such a book ever written.

Sheets, couldn't agree more.
Fluff, couldn't agree less.

 

[pemerton]

Each group has one sort of "special ability" that becomes relevant, and it's specifically called out and unique (rather than kind of burried in rulespeak like a lot of 4e's combat abilities were).

I think we have different relationships to the 4e "rulespeak". For me, that's what helps make clear how the ability will likely play. I find the playtest's preference for ordinary language description a bit distracting and (as in the discussion of the sand in Sleep, or the "close call" in Reaper) sometimes misleading.

Which is not an argument for or against anything. Just a presentation of (what seems to be) a contrasting experience.