Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 8997635" data-attributes="member: 58401">You’re right that people generally do talk about 4E monster design generally, but I just meant that among all the talk in this thread about mechanically-interesting dragon design, 4E’s contribution wasn’t being mentioned.Also, FYI the “Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale” is a separate product from the one I was talking about. Threats to the Nentir Vale was well-received because it was a monster book deeply entwined with a a specific setting, so it had lots of named creatures and lore… but it was somewhat less useful as a generic monster book. The Monster Vault that I meant was published 7 months earlier and takes the place of a generic monster manual for 4E Essentials; most of the creatures within were total rebuilds (NOT reprints) of MM1 monsters, including chromatic dragons. And this product was criminally overlooked by 4E players at the time.I tried looking up Blog42, but Google didn’t have anything for me. Was it called something else? I recall some monster math articles from those days, but not the details, so I won’t comment until I can confirm those memories.Anyway, I’m wondering if your timeline is a bit skewed. Perhaps I misunderstood, but the truth is MM3 was published 6 months earlier than Monster Vault. IIRC, Essentials did use the MM3 monster math as a basis (hence what I meant by “nailed down”—it was the last iteration officially published, I believe).However, you’re quite wrong about them “backing away from roles” by this point, at least if Monster Vault is any indication. Take the statblocks of the MM1 Elder chromatic dragons alongside the Monster Vault elder chromatic dragons: you’ll see major differences in their capabilities that bring them much closer to their stated roles, and also include features that are clear precursors to legendary actions. Monster Vault was leaps ahead of most of 4E, and unfortunately I don’t think even the few subsequent 4E products truly built on this.Just to reiterate my point above, the Monster Vault dragons are definitely a step up from the dragons you will have seen in other 4E monster books. That said, you’re not wrong that including legendary and lair actions when considering 5E’s dragons definitely levels the comparison. Taken together, 5E’s dragons do have a somewhat better action economy, but the Monster Vault dragons I believe are still more resistant to being locked-down/incapacitated due to the fact that they never run out of legendary resistance like the 5E dragons do.It’s worth acknowledging here that we’re quibbling about the merits of two very close iterations of a similar design. There are surely many similarities. I just really like pointing the 4E’s Monster Vault in particular, because even among 4E fans that product was unfortunately ignored.My final point: I dislike lair actions, and it’s a perception issue. I like what they do mechanically, but I dislike that they’re tied to the lair rather than specifically the monster itself. For example, red dragons in 5E can cause earthquakes, magma eruptions, and summon volcanic gasses—the volcanic theme is there, but these aren’t iconic to the red dragon. One also wonders if the same dragon has no such powers if encountered atop a stony or fortress castle? And can any other large creature (a fire giant? a blue dragon?) do the same things if placed in the same lair? Other examples exist too: beholders can shoot eye lasers from the walls… not exactly an iconic beholder power. I think lair actions are interesting but ultimately a flavour miss.</blockquote>

Verification