D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[James Gasik]

Emphasis mine.

This has never been a thing in a core MM. Even the 2E MM -- one of the best -- didn't do that, it just told you how the monsters fit into the world. The CR system was an attempt to provide a tool to help GMs judge the encounters they built, which previous editions had just ignored or told the Gm to roll randomly so you might run into 3 orcs, or 300 (no, that is not an exaggeration). So, CR isn't perfect but it is an attempt to provide the GM with some information D&D has never really provided, and almost no other games even attempt.

Actual advice on how to use a monster has never been a thing in a core MM? So what's this "Combat" section, then?

 

[James Gasik]

And if someone says "oh but that just tells us how it's powers work, and isn't really combat advice", here's another example:

 

[Reynard]

And if someone says "oh but that just tells us how it's powers work, and isn't really combat advice", here's another example:

View attachment 251660

Point taken and conceded. I was operating off memory and didn't check.

On the upside, the 2E MM is even better than I remember.

 

[Hussar]

4e's voice was strong, but very different from 1e's voice.

Not really my point.

After 1e only the 4e DMG had a strong voice. And as a result, the DMG barely gets read.

 

[Hussar]

IMO, they should have thrown out the CR guidelines, and stuck with traditional feel and ease of reading coupled with actual advice on how to use the monsters they made. WotC really seems to have an aversion to explaining themselves in their own products.

Well yes. Because when they explain themselves everyone gets up in arms about badwrongfun and loses their poop.

So of course they don’t. You got what you asked for.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally I've love for the 4e Monster roles to come back, added to, de-mathed, and explained in the front.

It would have helped DM understand howto run the monsters in books AND cause WOTC to catch themselves when creating wacky mosters with irrational or volatile combat tactics.

 

[Hussar]

Personally I've love for the 4e Monster roles to come back, added to, de-mathed, and explained in the front.

It would have helped DM understand howto run the monsters in books AND cause WOTC to catch themselves when creating wacky mosters with irrational or volatile combat tactics.

IMO, the 4e monster rules were probably the best DnD has ever had and I think rank among some of the best rpg game design ever.

The mistake with 4e was the proliferation of status effects. That got ludicrous and unnecessary. But combined with 5e’s combat assumptions and 4e’s clarity and I would buy the hell out of that book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well yes. Because when they explain themselves everyone gets up in arms about badwrongfun and loses their poop.

So of course they don’t. You got what you asked for.

I'm not talking about public statements. I'm talking about explaining their design choices and intentions for the system in the books (particularly the DMG).

And besides, whether or not people have a negative reaction, its good practice to tell your audience why you made the choices you made.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not talking about public statements. I'm talking about explaining their design choices and intentions for the system in the books (particularly the DMG).

And besides, whether or not people have a negative reaction, its good practice to tell your audience why you made the choices you made.

I am curious wheere you think that occurs often enough to be able to judge it a "good practice." Specifically, in the work at hand. I can't say I have ever seen a video game stop to tell me why the Boss has its special attack, or a film that breaks to explain the importance of the lighting in a scene. Those things are part of design diaries and commentary -- which tabletop RPGs have in spades, found mostly online.

I think it is worthwhile for a monster book to explain how to use a monster, or for the DMG to explain how to set up an encounter or days worth of encounters (see the LevelUp encounter building chapter for a really thorough example), but the DMG certainly doesn't need a built in "design diary."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Personally I've love for the 4e Monster roles to come back, added to, de-mathed, and explained in the front.

from your mouth to god ears... we need MORE expansion of the roles and explanations not less