D&D 4E Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters

[Ilbranteloth]

How much damage does a blow from Achilles's spear do? Let's say 8 for a max damage roll, +5 for STR, +3 for sundry other bonuses, = 16. How much more dangerous should an ancient dragon's claw be than Achilles's spear?

Different people will have different view on this. My feeling is that 17 seems not too far off the mark. It makes senseto me that it hurts less than having a giant's rock land on top of you! (30-ish damage.)

As far as dragons are concerned, I envisage the risk of sudden death to a hero coming from the breath weapon rather than the claw attack.

Perhaps Achilles's spear is too low as well? I kind of agree with the breath weapon, but based on the size of dragons (I continue to use 2e as a reference, which made dragons very, very large), if a gargantuan creature is big enough to hold you in its hand the same way you might hold a hamster, then it has the potential to do some serious damage. This isn't something I've changed yet, but it's something we're considering.

I don't really follow this.

In 4e, a raging dragon being able to inflict fire damage out to 25' (5 sq) is an existing ability. JRRT's dragons have a similar capability, I think - the heat of their bodies drives away their enemies, and the fumes that they breathe are poisonous in a way that is better modelled by some sort of aura than by D&D's breath weapon mechanic.

A 4e raging dragon ability to inflict aura damage was a new ability for those of us that have been using Red Dragons since the late '70s. While JRRT's dragons are certainly an influence, they aren't the only one. I'm really not even that much of a fan of the metallic/chromatic dragon approach, at least not in the way they are illustrated. But that's a different issue and doesn't change the abilities of the creature itself.

As far as "new abilities that appear only when bloodied" - I'm not sure what you're referring to. In 4e, dragons that are bloodied recharge and use their breath, just as described in the Youtube video. This is not a new ability; it's a type of action economy/pacing thing.

Again, I'm not sure that I follow.

It's a comment on how the game design often dictates the need for additional abilities. This isn't new, it's just when you change the design of the game (and 4e changed it significantly), you often have to create things to fit that design.

For example, in 5e a new fighter archetype grants you abilities at 3rd, 7th, 10th, 15th and 18th level. If there was a new archetype that you wanted because you had one ability that you thought really defined a different type of fighter, you have to come up with four additional abilities to flesh out the archetype design. An alternative might be to create a feat, but creating a feat that's available only to fighters of a particular level isn't entirely within the current approach.

In 4e (although I'm probably misremembering here) there seemed to be a lot of abilities tied to bloodied, which was sort of the purpose of the condition (I don't recall any sort of global effect, nor disadvantage given when bloodied). Like the one time instant recharge and reaction use of the dragon's breath weapon, they tended to be beneficial to the creature that was bloodied. I also seem to recall that as time went on, more creatures received bloodied abilities.

We have the potential of combat fatigue when you are reduced to less than 50% of max hit points, and the chance continues until you are healed. No matter how many levels you eventually suffer in the combat, it's restored during a short rest (about 10 minutes in my campaign). This ties directly into our description of hit points as a small amount of physical health, combined with skill, luck, and stamina. It also points in the general direction of morale and the probability that intelligent creatures are more likely to try to retreat, escape, or surrender when they are on the losing end of a battle.

I'm not saying our rules are "better" or "right," they simply exist to support the kind of story we like.

I remember reading the Deathlock Wight entry, and being really struck and impressed by the design of it Horrific Visage:

Fear, psychic * Recharge 4 5 6
Attack: Close blast 5 (creatures in the blast); +7 vs. Will
Hit: 1d6 + 6 psychic damage, and the wight pushes the target up to 3 squares.​

The idea that the wight could make its enemies recoil in horror captured my imagination; the use of the blast AoE to model a gaze (ie only one side of the wight is affected, namely, the side it is looking at) struck me as a clever use of the base design elements).

When the PCs in my game encountered a deathlock wight in my game, there were pits in the room and one PC nearly fell down. But for some reason (I think because the passage leading down to the wight's mausoleum was sloping) the players had decided that the characters would rope themselves together; and that paid off, as the dwarf made a successful STR check to stop the other character (maybe the elven ranger) falling down the pit.

For me, that was a good moment in play. The deathlock wight's horrific visage was experienced in play, insofar as at least one adventurer recoiled in terror; and the roping together paid off. I don't understand how descriptive text is a substitute for this: I can describe away as much as I want how horrific the wight is, but no player I've ever played with is going to free narrate his/her PC recoiling in horror so as to full down a pit.

That sounds very cool. I'd probably add a chance that the affected characters might drop what they are holding as well.

I'm not complaining about any particular ability, and that paid off well in your campaign. I prefer something like pushes up to 15 feet, or even 12 feet, I'm not married to a 5' square since I don't use battle mats even when using minis. But that's a presentation thing that doesn't really change the ability itself.

Again, my concern is that the added abilities change the nature of the creature itself, from one edition to the next. It's irrelevant if you started playing D&D in 4e, because your campaign has no connection to the earlier editions. On the other hand, if you're like Matt Colville, 5e eliminates a lot of things he likes about 4e.

4e uses a whole other framework for non-combat resolution, namely, skill challenges. There's plenty of discussion to be had about how to frame skill challenges; and how to integrate them with combat (which is one of the bigger technical challenges of GMing 4e).

But the monster stat block is not intended to carry this non-combat resolution.

For instance, when I adapted the Robin Laws HeroWars adventure Demon of the Red Grove to 4e, I had to decide how to handle the trapped demon's terror inducing screams in 4e:

​

None of that required anything in the stat block of the glabrezu, because it is managed via the framing of checks and consequences in a skill challenge. The monster stat block isn't the place where this non-combat stuff is handled in the 4e system.

Skill challenges were notoriously problematic, and they redesigned the mechanic several times if I recall. To me it was designing a complex game system where none is needed. Not everything needs to be mechanized, and while a skill system in an RPG naturally leads to people thinking a dice roll is required and preferred, we've found we prefer the opposite, which is fewer die rolls.

In most cases the course of the game is handled by the conversation at the table, with skills resolved with a combination of passive skills and take 20. There are times where we have active skill checks, but they tend to be contested checks, or a method to determine something like how much time it takes to succeed, or only when the challenge would be considered at least hard. And the categories of hard, very hard, and nearly impossible are different in our campaign, based on your skill, not an arbitrary DC. Something with about a 50% chance of failure is hard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Skill challenges were notoriously problematic, and they redesigned the mechanic several times if I recall.

They did. It was initially problematic (SCs got /easier/ the more 'complex' they were), but that problem was quickly fixed, then there was some fiddling with DC guidelines. Within 2 years it was a nicely functional system. But, it was trying to do something (structure non-combat challenges to be as participatory and engaging as combat ones) that hadn't been tried before (in D&D), and hasn't been attempted by 5e, as yet. It didn't succeed - SCs were still sketchy and hard to make as interesting as combats - but it did make some progress in that direction.

Not everything needs to be mechanized

Only the things in the fiction you want to model.

(Heck, the worse a system is, simple or complex, the easier it is to ignore, and the greater the rewards for doing so!) ;P

Nothing about 4E stat blocks kept people from playing a monster the way they wanted, except where things were specifically changed. 4E dragons losing their spells, for example, is a change that changes how you can play them. But their personality really isn't part of the stat block.

It's not exactly hard to toss a couple of spells into a stat-block, though (I just did so for an Ancient Mercury Dragon I expect the party to release from temporal stasis next session).

IIRC, in most editions, spellcasting was something some individual dragons might do, and others might not.

And I don't want my world to be designed to fit the slots of a game

It isn't a bad approach, if you don't want a bad game.

So more than anything, I object to all of this new design changing the established lore around which I have based my campaign for 30+ years. Don't make your new lore the default for all campaigns in this new edition.

'Lore' can be nebulous, it depends on how tightly you couple it to the mechanics. No matter how tightly-coupled or monolithic or authoritative the presentation, though, it's never like you can't just stick with what it's been all along - whatever you feel that may be (considering it started out pretty vague, and changed a lot over the years).

 

[pemerton]

It's irrelevant if you started playing D&D in 4e, because your campaign has no connection to the earlier editions. On the other hand, if you're like Matt Colville, 5e eliminates a lot of things he likes about 4e.

Well, in my case I started playing D&D over 30 years ago with Moldvay Basic. But as far as dragons are concerned, I've used B/X and AD&D dragons, both as written and modified by refernce to various ideas in mid-80s Dragon mags; I've read about the BECMI version (as per the letter to Dragon from Mentzer that I posted upthread); I've used Rolemaster dragons, and read dragon stats for other FRPGs; and have read fantasy stories (JRRT, Wizard of Earthsea, Beowulf are the main ones that come to mind) that invovle dragons.

In the context of all this, the 4e addition of a heat/fire aura, and a single-target immolation ability, doesn't seem like some wild change to draconic nature!

Skill challenges were notoriously problematic

I would say: only in the sense that combat by way of hp attrition is notoriously problematic, hence giving rise to other combat resolution systems, especially in the "classic" anti-D&D games like Runequest, Rolemaster and C&S.

I never found them problematic. I posted a write-up of play using a skill challenge. There was no problem with that at my table.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Well, in my case I started playing D&D over 30 years ago with Moldvay Basic. But as far as dragons are concerned, I've used B/X and AD&D dragons, both as written and modified by refernce to various ideas in mid-80s Dragon mags; I've read about the BECMI version (as per the letter to Dragon from Mentzer that I posted upthread); I've used Rolemaster dragons, and read dragon stats for other FRPGs; and have read fantasy stories (JRRT, Wizard of Earthsea, Beowulf are the main ones that come to mind) that invovle dragons.

In the context of all this, the 4e addition of a heat/fire aura, and a single-target immolation ability, doesn't seem like some wild change to draconic nature!

I would say: only in the sense that combat by way of hp attrition is notoriously problematic, hence giving rise to other combat resolution systems, especially in the "classic" anti-D&D games like Runequest, Rolemaster and C&S.

I never found them problematic. I posted a write-up of play using a skill challenge. There was no problem with that at my table.

I wasn't referring to you specifically about 4e, but you essentially illustrate my point anyway.

What it really comes down to for me is that I have only so much time to devote to gaming. I've played Runequest, Rolemaster, GURPS, Paranoia, Traveller, T&T, Gamma World, BECMI D&D (starting with Holmes), (A)D&D through 5e, and many others that I can't remember right now. When it comes down to it, my favorite has been AD&D with the FR Gray Box, heavily leaning on JRRT. Later editions of D&D have added some ideas and streamlined rules, and 5e in general is my favorite in terms of mechanics.

When 4e came out, from a game design standpoint (of which I'm an avid amateur), I thought it had some really cool concepts, but overall it just wasn't D&D to me. It seems to share more (or perhaps not more, but just too much) in common with MtG which I tried to get into but it's just not my thing. I even went so far as to design a new campaign world and once again started tweaking the rules. But I later came to the realization that I wasn't looking for a new campaign world, I just wanted to go back to what I was enjoying to start with. And it was a combination of the rules and the setting.

As I worked through the D&DNext, it started highlighting that a lot we had embraced in 3/3.5e, or even the post Skills & Powers 2e, we didn't like or need for what we find important in our game. The game had gotten more complex, but not in a way that ultimately improved our game. The rules often seemed to arise from common problems that were occurring at other gaming tables (particularly in regards to rules-lawyers and munchkinizers), or because it seemed it was determined that there needed to be a rule to adjudicate every possible action.

The 5e rule set has reigned back in a lot of this, recognizing that a good mechanic that can be applied as needed to whatever situation is often all that is needed. The d20 mechanic combined with advantage/disadvantage is simple, elegant, and only requires the identification of a point in time that requires a resolution, and the application of a DC or a contest. If you want to sub-divide that, that's fine too. For me, discussions and my own thoughts and testing of passive skill checks, combined with the take 20 concept has really brought clarity to our rules approach. Our general approach now is to strip back and eliminate rules that we feel we don't need, and tweak those that either don't produce the results we're looking for, or specifically interfere with the world or the fiction that we want to be able to model.

I'm not saying D&D 4e (or any other edition) is bad, or whatever. My only comment is that it's not my cup of zzar. From a game design stand-point I think it's pretty impressive in its complexity and completeness. It's just not the game I want to spend my limited time playing.

 

[pemerton]

When 4e came out, from a game design standpoint (of which I'm an avid amateur), I thought it had some really cool concepts

Then you would have recognised that skill challenges are a D&D version of the sort of "closed scene resolution" mechanics that indie RPGs pioneered, beginning probably with Maelstrom Storytelling in 1997.

What was distinctive about 4e compared to those games was it's attempt to integrate that sort of system for non-combat with a version of traditional D&D combat that combined Gygaxian abstraction (AC, hp) with 3E precision (tactical positioning, 6-second rounds). A tall order, and probably not an unalloyed success, but I think the job done was not bad either!

The only reason I mention this is because you criticised 4e creature stat blocks for focusing on combat. And my point was that the game has a whole other system for supporting non-combat resolution. And because, in that system, only the players make action declarations (in some ways, that's a bit like Dungeon World) the GM doesn't need monster stat blocks to support it. Just flavour text. (Which actually seems to be something you have been advocating in other comments.)

The fact that you didn't care for skill challenges, or found them problematic, doesn't change the fact that they were there, as the mechanic to handle non-combat resolution. And hence the absence of non-combat stats from monster stat blocks is not some sort of whole or gap in the game, nor some comment about the focus of the game; it's about the way the game uses various systems to resolve different sorts of ingame situation.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Then you would have recognised that skill challenges are a D&D version of the sort of "closed scene resolution" mechanics that indie RPGs pioneered, beginning probably with Maelstrom Storytelling in 1997.

What was distinctive about 4e compared to those games was it's attempt to integrate that sort of system for non-combat with a version of traditional D&D combat that combined Gygaxian abstraction (AC, hp) with 3E precision (tactical positioning, 6-second rounds). A tall order, and probably not an unalloyed success, but I think the job done was not bad either!

The only reason I mention this is because you criticised 4e creature stat blocks for focusing on combat. And my point was that the game has a whole other system for supporting non-combat resolution. And because, in that system, only the players make action declarations (in some ways, that's a bit like Dungeon World) the GM doesn't need monster stat blocks to support it. Just flavour text. (Which actually seems to be something you have been advocating in other comments.)

The fact that you didn't care for skill challenges, or found them problematic, doesn't change the fact that they were there, as the mechanic to handle non-combat resolution. And hence the absence of non-combat stats from monster stat blocks is not some sort of whole or gap in the game, nor some comment about the focus of the game; it's about the way the game uses various systems to resolve different sorts of ingame situation.

Yep. And I do appreciate 4e from a game design perspective. Just don't like the game they designed as much as the editions that preceded it or 5e. Skill challenges were there, and have a purpose, and may or may not have met that purpose in the general eyes of the RPG/D&D playing public. They presented a more complex design approach to fix problems that our table didn't have.

Skill challenges were designed in part to let everybody participate, and to have iterative steps to success, and to reduce reliance on a single skill so alternates can be used. So the first thing is up to the players to participate, if it's a complex task, or if there are logically alternative skills that can be used, then we'll go with it. We didn't need a complex new system for resolving skills. I've tried to design systems myself, and when it really came down to it, it was trying to make the mechanics more interesting, along with trying to build suspense through the mechanics. In the end we found that it was just another rule that pulls us out of what is interesting - the fiction.

I like situations that require certain skills to succeed, and I prefer complex skilled to be trained only. If they want to get into a particular evil temple for some reason, and they don't have the skill or the magic to do it, then go get it and come back.

I love Tomb of Horrors (and I'm curious to see how it fits the 5e design). If this is a world where adventurers exist, and you want your stuff to stay put when you're dead, then load up your resting place with deadly traps. You know, the place that is so legendary that nobody has ever returned. Guess what, I (as the DM) didn't design it just so you could be the fools that did return. If you want to be them, then you figure out how to do it. Or die like the rest of them.

I'm not opposed to them fixing problems that a lot of players are having. But a lot of that can be descriptive and instructional text. Sometimes a mechanical fix is good.

That the monster stat blocks focused heavily on combat wasn't really the problem, though. It was the multiple types of monsters that were created for each one to fill the different combat roles. The OP (and Mike Colville in his video) really liked monster design. I've seen other threads about how to modify dragons to make them more interesting in combat. That's part of what Mike's talking about in his video. The thing is, a red dragon doesn't exist in a world with green dragons just so they can be more interesting in combat. They didn't evolve into different creatures so they would have cool abilities that would make your combat more interesting, etc.

Really, I'm not interested in the rules making combat interesting period. My games aren't designed around combat, we just need a way to adjudicate them when they happen. I like my players to think of combat as something to avoid if possible. It's not a "fun" thing in real life to be in a circumstance where there's a good chance you might be killed. Yes the rules need to support tactics, and the idea that some people are better than others, and that you have different weapons, etc.

If I were an adventurer, I wouldn't be wandering around the world saying:

"Man, I'm glad we survived those ogres, but wasn't it a bit boring this time? I mean, they acted just like ogres."
"Yeah, I know what you mean, they weren't even that different from the hill giants. I'm kind of tired of clubs. Wouldn't it be great if they had javelins next time? Or giant crossbows?"
"Oh, oh. Wait. I know...breath weapons! Man that would be just frickin' cool! An ogre that breathes fire!"

Monsters or creatures don't evolve just to be more interesting in combat. Dragons were an example, and while a given dragon might develop tactics to handle pesky dragon slayers, and might even learn spells specific to them, it won't suddenly evolve a new ability. Nor will they suddenly look up and say, "oh, we're in 4e now? OK, I get an aura power then - I'll burn everything within 25' of me. Oh, and if I get knocked to 50% hit points I'll get really mad and use my breath weapon again too. Every time." If that works with the lore in your world, hey no problem. Just not for me.

I do like combat rules that allow you to model what you expect to see in combat. So being able to target somebody's head because they're stupid enough to be in plate without a helmet. Hell yeah!. Attempt to knock somebody out, blind them by throwing sand in their eyes, gang up on them. All yes. And sure, there are abilities that people will train to learn, to gain that advantage in combat. Most of the tactics would be for use against other human(oids). Although I can see that in a world where monsters exist certain tactics would exist to address particular problems. For example, if trolls or lycanthropes are a local problem, then tactics and training will focus on them (such as in Nesme).

Tactics for dragon slaying? Since most people will never see one, much less actually consider trying to fight the thing if they did? Not so much. But, finding a group of heroes that specialize in it, and have developed their tactics and might be willing to train you? Sure. Of course, there's the Cult of the Dragon.

This topic of this thread is that monster design in 4e is better than 5e, and the main point of contention is the options in combat. If you like your game to focus on a fight with an orc being different than a fight with a goblin, an evil elf, or a human, then maybe it is.

But if you're like me, and find that maybe each of those creature might use different tactics, they don't need 5 different versions, nor abilities designed to make them more interesting in combat. You just play them differently. Flavor text is very helpful in that regard, although I don't care for much of the lore that's being added to creatures nowadays. Monsters such as displacer beasts, owlbears, griffons, etc. are easy enough. It's intelligent monsters, or those with cultures, that are more complicated. Having different sections of lore for each setting is one way to go, or less lore in the MM and sections fleshing out the lore for the monsters in setting books is another possibility. Segregating setting specific monsters into separate books. Lots of completely impractical options that I don't expect WotC to do. So for those I'll deal with going back to older editions or my own lore. It really only becomes problematic when the monster's abilities change to fit new lore.

And I don't care if there isn't an orc, bear, or ogre build that doesn't challenge a party of four 9th-level characters. I mean I do, because I think that no matter how skilled of a hunter you are, if that bear (or lion) suddenly charges you, it's a scary (and potentially deadly) encounter (particularly if you are alone). But the problem with the bear, lion, or orc in 4e design was the design of the system itself. Because of the way the system scaled, and the focus on balance at all levels, you needed multiple versions of a monster. Bounded accuracy does a much better job at keeping creatures threatening against all levels, although the abilities do still get a bit out of control.

From the character's point of view, it's all arrows, swords, and axes pointed in their general direction. Could be an orc, could be a goblin, maybe it's a human. But it's not really about whether it's more interesting to fight this than that. It's about whether you want to risk fighting that monster, or find an alternative. And if you fight it, what's the best way to engage without getting killed. Or maybe you didn't have a choice and you're just trying to escape.

So from my perspective, 5e is better monster design. Like AD&D and others. I might quibble a bit about certain things (like how much damage a giant should do when hitting you with a small tree). And even in 5e I add and remove abilities that I think are inappropriate. For most creatures I'm far more accepting of abilities that can be learned. For example, a goblin's nimble escape.

 

[pemerton]

Skill challenges were designed in part to let everybody participate, and to have iterative steps to success, and to reduce reliance on a single skill so alternates can be used.

They're also designed to produce finality in resolution, in the same way that D&D's combat rules produce finality - ie it's not just that we know the PC hit, but now the GM has to decide what the consequence of the hit is. We know that the PC hit, and that the monster's hp were reduced to zero, and hence the combat is over and has been won by the PC. Or vice versa.

The idea that the sort of finality RPGs have traditionally associated with combat resolution (under D&D's influence, which is itself a legacy of wargames) can be extended to the non-combat arena is something that indie RPGs in particular have picked up on. Although, in fact, one of the earliest examples of a non-combat resolution procedure that produces finality is the classic D&D wilderness evasion rules - which, for some reason, the game has largely abandoned in the intervening 30-odd years.

Classic D&D also has quite a few "no retry" rules (eg bend bars/lift gates, several thief abilities) - another way of achieving finality out of combat. But more recent iterations have tended to abandon this because it's "unrealistic" - skill challenges, influenced by indie RPGing, reintroduce that idea of finality. Just as, in combat, if your PC drops to zero hp you don't get a retry - the GM is entitled to narrate "Sorry, your guy failed to dodge the blow and went down!", so in a skill challenge if the players rack up 3 failures the GM is entitled to narrate "Sorry, your idea for a brilliant plan didn't work out because of XYZ - now the situations looks like this [ . . . GM describes the results of the PCs faling to achieve what they hoped to achieve . . .]".

If I were an adventurer, I wouldn't be wandering around the world saying:

"Man, I'm glad we survived those ogres, but wasn't it a bit boring this time? I mean, they acted just like ogres."
"Yeah, I know what you mean, they weren't even that different from the hill giants. I'm kind of tired of clubs. Wouldn't it be great if they had javelins next time? Or giant crossbows?"
"Oh, oh. Wait. I know...breath weapons! Man that would be just frickin' cool! An ogre that breathes fire!"

Presumably the adventurers would love it if all the goblins just handed over their loot as soon as they were asked for it, if magic items grew on trees, etc. But that may not make for a fun game for the players.

A player who wants combat encounters to be more interesting isn't speaking from the point of view of his/her PC. S/he is speaking from the point of view of someone who wants to have fun engaging in a leisure activity.

I'm not interested in the rules making combat interesting period. My games aren't designed around combat, we just need a way to adjudicate them when they happen. I like my players to think of combat as something to avoid if possible. It's not a "fun" thing in real life to be in a circumstance where there's a good chance you might be killed

<snip>

From the character's point of view, it's all arrows, swords, and axes pointed in their general direction. Could be an orc, could be a goblin, maybe it's a human. But it's not really about whether it's more interesting to fight this than that. It's about whether you want to risk fighting that monster, or find an alternative. And if you fight it, what's the best way to engage without getting killed. Or maybe you didn't have a choice and you're just trying to escape.

That seems like an argument for having a very simple combat resolution system (say, opposed checks). There are a number of RPGs that have this.

I do like combat rules that allow you to model what you expect to see in combat. So being able to target somebody's head because they're stupid enough to be in plate without a helmet. Hell yeah!. Attempt to knock somebody out, blind them by throwing sand in their eyes, gang up on them. All yes.

I tend to agree with Gygax that, in a combat system that uses hit points and AC rather than a RQ or RM-style system, hit location and the like are not germane. It's all bundled up into the stats (so not wearing a helmet should be like not carrying a shield - a -1 or -2 penalty to AC - and that's it).

But as far as blinding someone by throwing sand in their eyes, or knocking someone out, this is the sort of thing which in D&D has traditionally been handled by mechanics for the infliction of conditions. (In a system like Cortex+ this can be handled quite abstractly, because the mechanics for inflicting and quantifying "debuffs" like "blinded" are identical to the mechanics for inflicting and quantifying physical injury, but it's a very different resolution system from D&D.) And it's fairly well recognised that if there's no rationing, it can be overpowered (we don't let clerics cast Cause Blindness at will) but if the rationing takes the form of called shot penalties than it's easy to make it underpowered (it's basically impossible so not worth it) or overpowered (if the penalty turns out to be too easily ignorable, as some argue for the -5/+10 feats) or just plain swingy (which can be undesirable from the point of view of sustaining viable PCs over long term play).

This is the sort of thing I would expect an improvised action system to tackle (as 4e's did) or to be handled by some other form of mechanical guideline (eg as the battlemaster's manoeuvres do).

a red dragon doesn't exist in a world with green dragons just so they can be more interesting in combat. They didn't evolve into different creatures so they would have cool abilities that would make your combat more interesting, etc.

<snip>

Monsters or creatures don't evolve just to be more interesting in combat.

Presumably red dragons didn't evolve at all. Presumably they are creations of Tiamat (or some comparable divine or demonic being).

But in any event I don't find an ingame perspective very helpful for these sorts of game design questions. My starting premise is that I want playing the game to be fun. If that means that the heroes live implausibly (though genre-sanctioned) interesting lives, so be it. If that means that the 1st level PCs never happen to accidentally draw the ire of Demogorgon, who for whatever reason tends to focus his attention on epic-tier PCs, well so be it.

Managing the story elements of the game so as to engage the players and maintain interest is one of the most important parts of GMing, in my view. The mechanics of monster design, encounter building, DC setting, etc are all tools to be used to this end. On the way through they should also make it easy to determine what is happening in the fiction, but that's a byproduct of them serving their purpose well. I don't want to subordinate the goal of supporting interesting play to fidelity in world building. (Roger Musson in particular stresses this point in some articles on dungeon and scenario design in a series of very early 80s White Dwarf articles. Those articles have certainly influenced my GMing since I first read them over 30 years ago.)

Really, . Yes the rules need to support tactics, and the idea that some people are better than others, and that you have different weapons, etc.

a given dragon might develop tactics to handle pesky dragon slayers, and might even learn spells specific to them, it won't suddenly evolve a new ability. Nor will they suddenly look up and say, "oh, we're in 4e now? OK, I get an aura power then - I'll burn everything within 25' of me. Oh, and if I get knocked to 50% hit points I'll get really mad and use my breath weapon again too. Every time." If that works with the lore in your world, hey no problem. Just not for me.

I have no idea what this is about.

Maybe you think of the rules for turn-by-turn resolution and action economy as an accurate model of a strange, stop-motion world. I don't. They're a resolution device. Dragons breathe fire. They do so when they're angry, and/or when they want to barbecue people. They don't do it with metronomic regularity. The "recharge and use when bloodied" rule is a device for introducig some dynamism into the turn-by-turn round system. (Hence it would be unnecessary in classic D&D, which doesn't use turn-by-turn resolution; or in Rolemaster or RQ, which aspire to systems very close to continuous resolution.)

I also don't understand your remarks about "evolution". Ancient dragons are the embodiment of the primal fury of their element. Getting so hot, when riled up, that everyone and everything around them is scorched by the heat, doesn't seem like any sort of genre violation to me. As I posted upthread, it seems consistent with JRRT. The fact that early editions didn't model this particular feature of dragons is (in my view) neither here nor there. They didn't model all sorts of things (eg rogue's deftness at hiding behind cover, as per Cunning Action) but that's an artefact of rules changes. There was a first time, after all, that some GM decided that setting a spear against a charge does double damage - but no one thought that this reflected some change in the physics of the gameworld! Nor that the abolition of this rule in 5e signals a reverse change.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And actually, that video explains pretty well everything I hate about 4th edition and its approach to monsters.

The dragon is a good example because what makes a dragon interesting to me is not it's attacks and such, but its personality. Its intelligence is what makes them truly dangerous. It doesn't mean that I'm not open to some other ideas to modify them. But the modifications I'm interested in aren't to add "cool abilities" or attempt to design something that challenges the PCs more.

The dragon is a creature that is highly intelligent, has survived centuries, and is well aware of its capabilities. Sometimes they get a bit overconfident, but that's because it's extremely rare that they are actually seriously challenged by any group. A large army, or whatever, sure, but that's something they'll fly away from.

And this is the area where 4e was far and away superior to other editions of D&D in my experience. 4e takes an approach for its statblocks "It's not who you are underneath but what you do on the outside that counts".

Below is the standard 5e Adult Green Dragon statblock pasted from the SRD. I am very interested in seeing what you think that that statblock says about the personality of the dragon in question and how it differentiates it from any other adult dragon other than that it has slightly different numbers and a different breath attack. (And it swims rather than flies, burrows, or climbs).

[h=2]Adult Green Dragon[/h]
Huge dragon, lawful evil
Armor Class 19 (natural armor)
Hit Points 207 (18d12 + 90)
Speed 40 ft., fly 80 ft., swim 40 ft.​

[TABLE="width: 1"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #A68563"]

STR​

[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A68563"]

DEX​

[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A68563"]

CON​

[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A68563"]

INT​

[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A68563"]

WIS​

[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A68563"]

CHA​

[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF2E5"]

23(+6)​

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF2E5"]

12(+1)​

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF2E5"]

21(+5)​

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF2E5"]

18(+4)​

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF2E5"]

15(+2)​

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF2E5"]

17(+3)​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Saving Throws Dex +6, Con +10, Wis +7, Cha +8
Skills Deception +8, Insight +7, Perception +12, Persuasion +8, Stealth +6
Damage Immunities poison
Condition Immunities poisoned
Senses blindsight 60 ft., darkvision 120 ft., passive Perception 22
Languages Common, Draconic
Challenge 15 (13,000 XP)
Amphibious. The dragon can breathe air and water.
Legendary Resistance (3/Day). If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.
[h=3]Actions[/h]Multiattack. The dragon can use its Frightful Presence. It then makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 17 (2d10 + 6) piercing damage plus 7 (2d6) poison damage.
Claw. Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 13 (2d6 + 6) slashing damage.
Tail. Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 15 ft., one target. Hit: 15 (2d8 + 6) bludgeoning damage.
Frightful Presence. Each creature of the dragon’s choice that is within 120 feet of the dragon and aware of it must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. If a creature’s saving throw is successful or the effect ends for it, the creature is immune to the dragon’s Frightful Presence for the next 24 hours.
Poison Breath (Recharge 5–6). The dragon exhales poisonous gas in a 60-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 18 Constitution saving throw, taking 56 (16d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.​

I see almost nothing telling me from the stats what you say is the important part of the dragon other than the skills. For that matter when it goes claw/claw/bite (as it does under multiattack) I can't tell it from other monsters in general making three attacks by the mechanics.

Below is the Young Black Dragon from the 4e Monster Vault - and it tells me how the dragon moves. It doesn't just waddle or fly up to people and make full attacks. Yes, it goes claw/claw or bite. But rather than no-selling attacks with Legendary Resistance 3/day it shows me why and how dragons are overwhelming thanks to Action Recovery and Instinctive Devouring (and doesn't just no-sell the way every other big monster does). And then there's the Shroud of Gloom. The dragon using its specifically draconic magic in combat.

The 4e statblock is shorter and easier to use. It also provides me much more flavour and knowledge of how the dragon acts when the rubber meets the road - and it's laid out in a way that is so much faster to get at. Before that? It's about the same.

And then there was the 3.X one. I'd have posted a 3.X dragon from the 3.X SRD but the 3.X SRD doesn't even provide something usable - merely a set of formulae to make one. So here's the Pathfinder adult black dragon.

[h=3]Black Dragon, Adult[/h][TABLE="class: sites-layout-name-two-column sites-layout-hbox, width: 1074"]
[TR]
[TD="class: sites-layout-tile sites-tile-name-content-1"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 85%, align: left"]

Adult Black Dragon​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

CR 11​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

XP 12,800
CE Large dragon (water)
Init +5; Senses dragon senses; Perception +24
Aura frightful presence (180 ft., DC 19)

DEFENSE​

AC 28, touch 10, flat-footed 27 (+1 Dex, +18 natural, –1 size)
hp 161 (14d12+70)
Fort +14, Ref +10, Will +12
DR 5/magic; Immune acid, paralysis, sleep; SR 22

OFFENSE​

Speed 60 ft., fly 200 ft. (poor), swim 60 ft.
Melee bite +21 (2d6+10), 2 claws +20 (1d8+7), 2 wings +15 (1d6+3), tail +15 (1d8+10)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft. (10 ft. with bite)
Special Attacks breath weapon (80-ft. line, DC 22, 12d6 acid), corrupt water
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 14th)

At will—darkness (60-ft. radius)

Spells Known (CL 3rd)​

1st (6/day)—alarm, mage armor, obscuring mist
0 (at will)—dancing lights, detect magic, mending, message, read magic

STATISTICS​

Str 25, Dex 12, Con 21, Int 14, Wis 17, Cha 14
Base Atk +14; CMB +22; CMD 33 (37 vs. trip)
Feats Alertness, Improved Initiative, Improved Vital Strike, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Stealth), Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (bite)
Skills Fly +12, Handle Animal +16, Intimidate +19, Knowledge (arcana) +19, Perception +24, Spellcraft +19, Stealth +20, Swim +32
Languages Common, Draconic, Giant

SPECIAL ABILITIES​

[h=4]Corrupt Water (Sp)[/h]Once per day an adult or older black dragon can stagnate 10 cubic feet of still water, making it foul and unable to support water-breathing life. The ability spoils liquids containing water. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save (DC 19) or become ruined. This ability is the equivalent of a 1st-level spell. Its range is 180 ft.
[h=4]Speak with Reptiles (Sp)[/h]A young or older black dragon gains the constant spell-like ability to speak with reptiles. This functions as speak with animals, but only with reptilian animals. swamp stride, water breathing
[h=4]Swamp Stride (Ex)[/h]A very young or older black dragon can move through bogs and quicksand without penalty at its normal speed.
[h=4]Water Breathing (Ex)[/h]A black dragon can breathe underwater indefinitely and can freely use its breath weapon, spells, and other abilities while submerged.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So what does it do when the rubber meets the road? Bite Claw Claw Wing Buffet Wing Buffet Tail Slap. Or breathes acid. *yawn* Or, admittedly, turns the lights out on people the way a cleric can but at will and bigger. Meanwhile it has nine cross-referenced spells and seven cross-referenced feats so the statblock is incomplete.

2e is no better. It hides its rules in paragraphs of junk - for example the Dragon's mule-kick has a paragraph of its own (and applies to all dragons). Or ones like the following:

Spells: Dragons learn spells haphazardly over the years. The DM should randomly determine which spells any particular dragon knows. The dragon can cast each spell once per day, unless random determination indicates the same spell more than once, in which case the dragon can cast it more than once a day. Dragons to not use spell books or pray to deities; they simply sleep, concentrate when they awaken, and remember their spells. Dragon spells have only a verbal component; the spells have a casting time of 1, regardless of level. Dragons cannot physically attack, use their breath weapon, use their magical abilities, or fly (except to glide) while casting a spell.​

Oh, and under black dragons:
[FONT=&quot]Black dragons are born with an innate water breathing ability and an immunity to acid. As they age, they gain the following additional powers:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Juvenile: darkness three times a day in a 10' radius per age category of the dragon. Adult: corrupt water once a day. For every age category a dragon attains, it can stagnate 10 cubic feet of water, making it become still, foul, inert, and unable to support animal life. When this ability is used against potions and elixirs, they become useless if they roll a 15 or better on 1d20. Old: plant growth once a day. Venerable: summon insects once a day. Great wyrm: charm reptiles three times a day. This operates as a charm mammals spell, but is applicable only to reptiles.[/FONT]

In short these are innate abilities that don't tell me how they act. But they make the creatures harder to run.

Dragons were your example. And the 4e dragon statblock I've presented is more flavourful, tells me more about how dragons move and act when the rubber meets the road, and is much easier to use than the 2e, the 3.5, the Pathfinder, and the 5e statblock.

Agreed. But the stat blocks in 4e, especially with the different versions of monsters, steer you toward a particular approach, in the same way they pigeonholed PCs into roles by class and the design of those classes.

1: What do you think classes were and what is the point of them? Classes are about pigeonholing and creating archetypes.
2: As demonstrated with the dragon example, every edition of D&D has done this. Almost all those statblocks for dragons have been about combat.

To me, those abilities don't speak to personality, in part because every blue dragon is expected to be that way.

As I have demonstrated, welcome to D&D. 4e gives you the most customisation possible of any version of D&D. It also gives the monsters a personality in combat and in the case of dragons says how the types differ other than through simply having different abilities.

Instead, those abilities read as game design to me. That is, let's come up with stats and abilities to make the red dragon different from the blue dragon. They each need a bloodied ability, and an aura ability, etc, because there are these combat role and slots, you see, that need to be filled. That's the design of the game.

Really? That's how the 2e design reads to me. The 4e design is let's make actual meaningful differences in the behaviour and approach of dragon types.

And I don't want my world to be designed to fit the slots of a game, I want the game to model the world however we wish to design it.

----> GURPS is thataway
<---- Fate is thataway.

When you play D&D you are playing a game with hit points and classes. You are playing a game designed round a class and level system.

If the design of the game is preventing me from making the creature, character, or action the way I want, then there's a problem with the rules.

And 4e doesn't do that. 4e statblocks are best used as descriptive tools so you can describe the monsters as they face the players.

4e is literally the only version of D&D I don't find incredibly constraining this way. As DM I can make monsters behave the way I want. There's no formula saying that "All ogres use d8s for hit dice unless they have class levels" because that would be ridiculous.

I don't expect stat blocks to excite me. Because they tell me little about a creature.

In which case why do you have statblocks at all? If statblocks took up a couple of paragraphs per monster and didn't excite me I'd dump them as not fit for purpose. 4e statblocks tell me how monsters behave when the rubber meets the road - but at no other time. They make monsters move differently (just ask any 4e player who's met a kobold infestation and been swarmed by the annoying little pests).

The stat block shouldn't control how I would portray a particular monster any more than it should control how a player controls their character.

And here you have the cart before the horse. The statblock doesn't control how you portray a monster. How you portray a monster, how it acts, and how it moves controls the statblock. You work out what you want the monster to do under physical pressure, turn that into powers, and write that down, testing it against some very simple formulae.

There's a similar thread on Reddit about how chromatic dragons all "feel" the same in combat. To me I say, "of course they do, they're dragons." That is, the general abilities of a dragon, the general look, etc. are what make a dragon a dragon. A breath weapon, magic, a really large and powerful lizard-like creature that flies (and yes, there are some that might swim).

And again I consider this a miserable failure. A good example in 4e would be the difference between goblins and kobolds. Both small, weak creatures - and in most editions of D&D you can barely tell them apart. In 4e? A kobold gets a free shift (a free 5ft step every turn) and you're going to end up swarmed and hamstrung by the little @%$&s. Meanwhile the more cowardly goblins get to shift after you've missed one. And gnomes? Get to turn invisible when you try and hit them.

But all dragons should feel different in combat, or in any encounter for that matter, because each one is a unique, intelligent individual.

Which is why the default of claw/claw/bite/wing buffet/wing buffet/tail slap is so silly.

Really, it's more a question of perspective and goals. I think that a dragon is a dragon and should, on the face of things, be very similar from one type to another. There are more similarities than differences in terms of biology.

And 4e does this. All dragons fly, have action recovery, and have instinctive actions. They are terrifying. And they are terrifying because they are overwhelming and powerful. But what their instinctive actions are differs.

What differentiates them are not their abilities, but their personality.
...
Because to me, the stats shouldn't tell you anything about personality.

I don't even believe you believe this. I don't believe that you don't think that your weapon choice tells you nothing about personality. I don't believe that you don't think that your spell choice tells you nothing about personality. I don't believe that you believe what you are good at and what you train and practice tells you nothing about personality.

Or do you genuinely believe that working at things does absolutely nothing at all to reflect what you care about? And what you do and what you practice and what you learn to do well has nothing to do with personality?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

They're also designed to produce finality in resolution, in the same way that D&D's combat rules produce finality - ie it's not just that we know the PC hit, but now the GM has to decide what the consequence of the hit is. We know that the PC hit, and that the monster's hp were reduced to zero, and hence the combat is over and has been won by the PC. Or vice versa.

The idea that the sort of finality RPGs have traditionally associated with combat resolution (under D&D's influence, which is itself a legacy of wargames) can be extended to the non-combat arena is something that indie RPGs in particular have picked up on. Although, in fact, one of the earliest examples of a non-combat resolution procedure that produces finality is the classic D&D wilderness evasion rules - which, for some reason, the game has largely abandoned in the intervening 30-odd years.

Classic D&D also has quite a few "no retry" rules (eg bend bars/lift gates, several thief abilities) - another way of achieving finality out of combat. But more recent iterations have tended to abandon this because it's "unrealistic" - skill challenges, influenced by indie RPGing, reintroduce that idea of finality. Just as, in combat, if your PC drops to zero hp you don't get a retry - the GM is entitled to narrate "Sorry, your guy failed to dodge the blow and went down!", so in a skill challenge if the players rack up 3 failures the GM is entitled to narrate "Sorry, your idea for a brilliant plan didn't work out because of XYZ - now the situations looks like this [ . . . GM describes the results of the PCs faling to achieve what they hoped to achieve . . .]".

My response specifically said in partbecause I wasn't describing all of the feature. As you point out, an older approach at finality was "no retry" rules, which we also didn't like. We developed our own system that does what it needs, that we like, and feel is simpler. That's it. I just didn't like the 4e approach over the one we have. The 5e approach sparked some new ideas and we've tweaked some more. Just like some posts here (including many of yours), on The Alexandrian, and elsewhere.

Presumably the adventurers would love it if all the goblins just handed over their loot as soon as they were asked for it, if magic items grew on trees, etc. But that may not make for a fun game for the players.

A player who wants combat encounters to be more interesting isn't speaking from the point of view of his/her PC. S/he is speaking from the point of view of someone who wants to have fun engaging in a leisure activity.

That seems like an argument for having a very simple combat resolution system (say, opposed checks). There are a number of RPGs that have this.

I tend to agree with Gygax that, in a combat system that uses hit points and AC rather than a RQ or RM-style system, hit location and the like are not germane. It's all bundled up into the stats (so not wearing a helmet should be like not carrying a shield - a -1 or -2 penalty to AC - and that's it).

Simpler combat resolution. Yes, they would like it if the the goblins would do that, but they don't. At least not in my world. I understand exactly where a player who wants combat to be more interesting. But not all people engaging in a D&D leisure activity want combat to be more interesting, or at least not that way. The combat system in 4e, or to a large degree 3.5e as written is not what we find interesting.

AD&D did have basic hit location. If you aren't wearing a helmet, for example, 1 in 6 hits the AC 10 head. Shields worked against the front and left, and can be used to strike or push as well. The AD&D combat system was improved in 2e, and then Combat & Tactics started the progression to 4e where a battle mat and minis are more important, if not required.

But as far as blinding someone by throwing sand in their eyes, or knocking someone out, this is the sort of thing which in D&D has traditionally been handled by mechanics for the infliction of conditions. (In a system like Cortex+ this can be handled quite abstractly, because the mechanics for inflicting and quantifying "debuffs" like "blinded" are identical to the mechanics for inflicting and quantifying physical injury, but it's a very different resolution system from D&D.) And it's fairly well recognised that if there's no rationing, it can be overpowered (we don't let clerics cast Cause Blindness at will) but if the rationing takes the form of called shot penalties than it's easy to make it underpowered (it's basically impossible so not worth it) or overpowered (if the penalty turns out to be too easily ignorable, as some argue for the -5/+10 feats) or just plain swingy (which can be undesirable from the point of view of sustaining viable PCs over long term play).

This is the sort of thing I would expect an improvised action system to tackle (as 4e's did) or to be handled by some other form of mechanical guideline (eg as the battlemaster's manoeuvres do).

And we have systems that we are happy with that provide the opportunity, are difficult, but not too difficult, etc.

Presumably red dragons didn't evolve at all. Presumably they are creations of Tiamat (or some comparable divine or demonic being).

But in any event I don't find an ingame perspective very helpful for these sorts of game design questions. My starting premise is that I want playing the game to be fun. If that means that the heroes live implausibly (though genre-sanctioned) interesting lives, so be it. If that means that the 1st level PCs never happen to accidentally draw the ire of Demogorgon, who for whatever reason tends to focus his attention on epic-tier PCs, well so be it.

Managing the story elements of the game so as to engage the players and maintain interest is one of the most important parts of GMing, in my view. The mechanics of monster design, encounter building, DC setting, etc are all tools to be used to this end. On the way through they should also make it easy to determine what is happening in the fiction, but that's a byproduct of them serving their purpose well. I don't want to subordinate the goal of supporting interesting play to fidelity in world building. (Roger Musson in particular stresses this point in some articles on dungeon and scenario design in a series of very early 80s White Dwarf articles. Those articles have certainly influenced my GMing since I first read them over 30 years ago.)

Yes, but there are different approaches and different ways to get to "fun" and we didn't find changing fun. And I have mentioned it several times, that this is my perspective, and that of our table. I don't expect that everybody will agree with me. But we find rules that seem to invade too much into the fiction of the world to be distasteful. One of the big ones for us is the turn-based combat system, and even more so the battle mat approach with counting squares, one person moving 30 feet and taking several actions while everybody else stands still, etc. Yes, I understand it is a methodology for resolution, and it is an approach that gives the illusion of certain types of tactics (like flanking, for example), but we just have a very hard time not seeing it as a stop-motion game that separates us from the characters and their in world perspective.

It's not an attack on game design. I have also said that I think from a design standpoint it's really well done considering their apparent goals. If you want a complex combat-oriented game, where you can account for lots of variables, abilities, and conditions, and you want to invest in the minis or some facsimile of them, and spending sometimes an hour or more on combat is what you consider fun, then this is a great option.

You may not find an in game perspective helpful. I do. Neither of us are right or wrong, just a different approach. My players will be in the midst of combat and try to do things they see in movies or read in books. "Can I hit him in the solar plexus to disable him?" "Can I pull his cloak over his head so I can run past him and out the door and get a head start? Oh, and push him over on the way to trip his companions?"

I'm not saying you can't do this in 4e, or earlier editions for that matter. But because of years of these sort of questions coming up, we developed our own resolution approaches (again, greatly simplified by 5e) so they can do things like that. When 4e came along, it changed all the math, and...it really doesn't matter what it changed. What matters is it didn't fit our game.

I have no idea what this is about.

Maybe you think of the rules for turn-by-turn resolution and action economy as an accurate model of a strange, stop-motion world. I don't. They're a resolution device. Dragons breathe fire. They do so when they're angry, and/or when they want to barbecue people. They don't do it with metronomic regularity. The "recharge and use when bloodied" rule is a device for introducig some dynamism into the turn-by-turn round system. (Hence it would be unnecessary in classic D&D, which doesn't use turn-by-turn resolution; or in Rolemaster or RQ, which aspire to systems very close to continuous resolution.)

Really I think what it comes down to is that turn-by-turn based resolution has certain benefits and failures. So we have a sort of hybrid, I guess it's really more round-based with some of action economy added in. Part of it is the feel of the combat, trying to make the overlay of the rules as transparent as possible. I've played storyteller games, and other games that have simpler combat resolution and they didn't quite work either. So there's a mix. Rolemaster or Runequest didn't quite work for us either (although I probably should re-read them now post 5e). The system in 4e was a stumbling point for us because it was too different from what we were doing, and we couldn't just tweak our tweaks, it amounted to almost starting over.

I also don't understand your remarks about "evolution". Ancient dragons are the embodiment of the primal fury of their element. Getting so hot, when riled up, that everyone and everything around them is scorched by the heat, doesn't seem like any sort of genre violation to me. As I posted upthread, it seems consistent with JRRT. The fact that early editions didn't model this particular feature of dragons is (in my view) neither here nor there. They didn't model all sorts of things (eg rogue's deftness at hiding behind cover, as per Cunning Action) but that's an artefact of rules changes. There was a first time, after all, that some GM decided that setting a spear against a charge does double damage - but no one thought that this reflected some change in the physics of the gameworld! Nor that the abolition of this rule in 5e signals a reverse change.

In your view it's neither here nor there. In our view, or more specifically in our world, the dragons that we used 25 years ago should match the dragons that we use today. Once again, I will say that from a game system, there isn't a huge issue with it. I can ignore it. The approach in 5e doesn't have to be restricted by the past, although I think it's wise to consider the past heavily since this is an iteration of the same game. But I don't have to like those changes, even while recognizing the design or business sense behind them.

 

[Imaro]

Below is the standard 5e Adult Green Dragon statblock pasted from the SRD. I am very interested in seeing what you think that that statblock says about the personality of the dragon in question and how it differentiates it from any other adult dragon other than that it has slightly different numbers and a different breath attack. (And it swims rather than flies, burrows, or climbs).?

I can only speak for myself but...

It tells me this dragon is a deceiver and it's a stealthy monster with preternatural senses and awareness...will try to use darkness to it's advantage

It tells me the dragon will use it's frightful presence as an opener before attacking with claw and fang to cow and weaken prey...

It tells me it has a tail attack it can use for enemies that are out of the range of it's claws and fangs as well as to launch attacks on fleeing enemies outside of it's bite or claws.

It tells me it is able to quickly attack with claws and bite after using Frightful Pressence in the same action, it's multiattack uses all 3 (talk about overwhelming)

It tells me that against air breathers/land dwellers this dragon, if given the opportunity, will try to take the fight into and under water where it has an advantage...

It uses poison as a Breath weapon and because of it's immunity to poison would try to make sure the terrain (lair)it battles in is poisonous to it's foes in some way.

It can easily shake off some major spell effects (for awhile) and thus would try to use this to identify spellcasters and/or make them waste their more powerful spells while trying to finish them off quickly


Honestly I don't see any more "story" in the black from 4e than in the green from 5e.