I honestly LOVE this dragon's design so much. The interweaving of its innate magic, the raw damage, the high chance of it striking first, and that at-will Charm Monster? Excellent, no notes.
I am interested in seeing how they tackle all the other monsters before I pass any kind of final judgement. But looking at the Green Dragon (and Dragons in general) these are my thoughts: 1) Dragons have had spell casting ability off and on throughout D&D's history. I am glad to see it is back as an included feature instead of an option. Dragons in my campaign have had spell casting ability for all 48 years I have been DM'ing. 2) I would have liked to have seen them bring more options into how the breath weapon can be utilized. For example, in my campaign, Dragons can use their breath weapon in one of three ways - Cone that does 75% of the average damage, concentrated Stream (5 ' wide line) that has 2x range and does 100% of the average damage (for strafing attacks), and a focused Blast (30' range) that does intense structural damage against objects (walls, buildings, etc.). 3) I am not sure how I feel about the Legendary Reactions yet. I will have to see how it plays out, but it looks like they have re-flavored legendary actions as reactions but with the added condition triggers. Again, not sure what I think about that yet. 4) I will be putting the Frightful Presence and Wing Attacks back in as options (at least for ancient dragons). I feel they are part of the flavor when dealing with these creatures that are so primordial. Frightful Presence in particular because I have always seen it as an excellent counter to the PC party that insists on bringing an army with them to help fight the dragon. As Smaug so succinctly put it "My armor is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!" 5) Something I have done in my campaign is that I have baked reach into the size category of monsters, and it applies to them unless otherwise specified in the creature description. Large creatures have 10' reach. Huge creatures have 15' reach. Gargantuan creatures have 20' reach. I know that some monsters in the MM have reach listed in their respective attack descriptions, but it isn't a consistent thing and doesn't make sense that a big old monster can't hit anything that is further than 5' from its location. I bring this up because of the new Rend attack the new green dragon has. The tail attack it had previously works well with my reach rules so no need for me to add Tail as a separate attack option 😄. I also know they have reach listed in the dragon attacks, but I will opt for my homebrew reach options instead. It has worked out well so far and my players have come to know that they need to respect the space around a big monster when engaged in melee combat. 6) Numerical Buffs/Debuffs - I am perfectly fine with these as long as they don't go bat-shit crazy with them to the point it bogs everything down as we sit and make calculations. That is one of the reasons I like 5e because all that 'stuff' was removed/simplified from earlier versions. 7) I am good with the HP buff. I tend to give my dragons higher HP pools anyway, at least for the larger, older dragons. I also like what they did with the statistics and saves. 8) Initiative. I have been using Passive Initiative for a long while now. If I feel it needs to be changed up, I will roll initiative instead. Keeps my players hopping.
Great run down. I concur with a LOT of what you're saying. I definitely don't intend any of my excitement over the Dragon to reflect certainty that we won't see big changes when the actual book comes out. I'm just excited by possibilities! :D I love the idea of dragons having more shape options for their breath weapons. It's something I've proposed before as a short. The movie Damsel I think really captures dragonbreath in a way that I'd have liked to see WotC imitate in statblocks. It'd also be an interesting set of optional rules to include in the DMG for easily customizing a lot of different monsters and the like. I haven't played around with adding reach to all monsters, I usually felt like if a creature was large but did NOT get reach, there was a narrative reason for it, instead of a mechanical one, and I tried to lean into that in my descriptions to differentiate between something big and tall with a long reach vs for instance a dire wolf that had to get up close and personal. Have you found it changed your descriptions to add those kinds of reaches in?
@@DM-Timothy I tend to be very descriptive in my approach to narrating encounters/combat any way so baking reach mechanics into the creatures hasn't really changed the way I do things. The only time the reach 'issue' comes into play is when tackling monsters that really wouldn't have reach because of the type of attack they use. In that case I change the description I am using in the combat narrative to make it clear (without actually saying it) to the players that the reach of the creature is limited. I always try to keep common sense in sight when applying flexibility in the mechanics. While I appreciate RAW, I firmly believe in flexibility and fluidity so that ultimately I can maintain whatever narrative is being built.
@@unknowncomic4107 That sounds like a good balanced stance to me. I tell people I run a fairly RAW game, but there's almost always a need for flexibility in every session.
I honestly do love the fact that a monster in their lair seems to actually be stronger than when they're not in such a simple, but VERY impactful way. Thats genuinely a huge change
I like the elegance of it. It feels smooth. I’ll miss the uniqueness of the lair action, but this feels easy for game play. I didn’t cover it, but also included in the dragons page was a list of lair features terrain wise that would allow you to make the lair a more living (and dangerous) part of the encounter.
Thank you Tim. Great video! Level up. Your foresight seems spot on, again. Speaking of your prophetic vibe, what is with the foreshadowing at 54seconds? 😂
I am sad that they removed the frightful presence. I have always loved dragons throughout the many editions of the game, but 5e seemed very bland. I always use spell casting, but I also include a couple of low level spells that seem thematic in the legendary actions. I like that they seem to have some advantages when in the lair, I just hope it doesn't replace lair actions completely.
I am sad it’s gone, but not, because it never felt impactful enough to be worth the dice rolls at the table. I quite enjoyed lair actions, too, but I think from an ease of play standpoint rolling them into legendary actions (fine, reactions) is probably a smart decision. Time will tell
I'm not sad to see frightful presence go. Having played PCs that were stymied about it that felt useless, and having DM's sessions where frightful presence neutered encounters, ignoring it is just more fun. You can get the intended effect with good description - especially if there are NPCs present. "Nope-nope-nope!"
@@kurtoogle4576 Planning how to overcome the frightful presence of a powerful dragon was part of the fun. A DC 24 aura of fear is brutal to many characters. That meant potions, spells, tactics etc.
@@LucasRibeiro-po4pbI guess? Fear is a weird mechanic because it f*cks over melee characters who you would want to yk... be in melee. And it's hard to roleplay a brave character when a mechanic clearly says "no actually"
@@Tuskbumper I like some modicum of brutal mechanics like that. The way I GM is thst the world is bigger than the characters. If by your choice or unlucky dice you end up facing Klauth himself and you are not prepared, you will feel like you are facing the most powerful dragon in the world.
The playability and versatility of this version make me more eager to run them. WotC's design team is paying attention to how things are actually played and what the themes of creatures are.
AD&D 2e dragons were probably the best. They all had spells, and they wanted to make dragons cool and powerful in that edition, compared to 1e and 0e D&D.
I hope that numerical bonuses are a rare thing, and are a monster thing. It's widespread use in dnd3e is one of the big reasons I didn't like it for tabletop.
They don’t appear to have been adopted as a typical thing in the PHB (and thus the player rules) from what I’ve seen so far. I suspect monsters are where we will see them by and large, if they even make the Final Cut at all.
Yeah. Though I originally disparaged Frightful Presence, apparently its impact has been greater at tables other than mine. I still think this dragon is scary enough even without mechanics, lol, but it’s a fair critique. Lair actions being gone is sad from a flavor standpoint, but something I didn’t highlight in the video was the descriptive text that gives a half dozen or so ideas for lair features that can be used against invaders, like honeycomb walls to allow poison breath weapon to pass through, which adds a lot back in, imo
I personally do not see the new reactions that negatively. Legendary Actions always had the feel of "3 reactions in a trenchcoat" to me anyways, and giving them specific triggers can eliminate some awkward situations. For example, if one character was standing next to a dragon but it was their allies turn first, they could end up getting tail slapped in the face 2 or 3 times before either their or the dragon's turn, even if the ally did not interact with the dragon or was actually unconscious on their turn. The new rend retaliation reaction at least gives players the option to not damage the dragon so their melee ally won't just get shredded out of turn.
That’s an interesting point. I do like that reactions having triggers means the group can learn those triggers and make tactical decisions based on them. I hadn’t looked at it from that angle, thank you!
The main upside of the new dragon is the good initiative, and I don't know if it is worth the nerf to its spellcasting. With any 4 7th level spells the 2014 have more potential there with a good spell choice. Replacing lair action with just another reaction and another legendary resistance is terrible, and remove a lot of the unique thing in a dragon fight. I guess that I will still use the old statblock for these dragons most of the times. I am glad the new PHB is compatible with the old monster manual.
I will miss the uniqueness of lair actions, it’s true. To your other point, one upside here is that you can both cast AND attack in one round, which seriously upsizes the potential of the spells in question. This dragon gets, for instance, and 8th level cloudkill that it can cast as part of an attack routine, or a 4th level dissonant whispers which it can cast every round and potentially trigger an OA to make up for the attack sacrificed for the casting to just add damage. Those are pretty potent options compared to a 7th level spell that takes your full round.
@@DM-Timothy OH, Definitely. There's skill and experience, or missing an important class ability. My current 5e campaign has no healers. Lol. Good times!
@@archersfriend5900 For reals! :D One of my groups went healerless and said "wow, we don't have a healer? We should really lean into how reckless we are and just do the craziest stuff we can imagine". Wild campaign.
I think Legendary Resistance is an important and necessary inclusion, but I like to make some minor adjustments to it so it has consequences for use. I think you're right that it's because people want their spells to land, but that's not necessarily as selfish as it sounds. Imagine you were playing a game of basketball and you sat on the sideline patiently waiting to get put in, then when you finally get on the field, the other team sends you back to the bench. Legendary Resistance sometimes feels like that. Finding ways to make it still keep the monster in play, but giving a feeling of forward momentum helps to make it less of a "unpleasant negation" and more of a "failing forward" moment.
@DM-Timothy I get it, I just have never thought of it that way, if my spell gets resisted I always frame it as "Well my spell got rid of that legendary resistance that's great!" I guess my owm positive thinking gives me a diffrent perspective on that lol.
The most likely reason why WoTC is simplifying stat blocks for monsters isn't necessarily for DM ease of life, but rather to make it easier for them to go fully digital soon. Which will require use of the newest material in this "so called" backward compatible edition.
@DM-Timothy more a comment on taking the D&D experience from primarily physical to primarily digital. That, and their eventual role out of their finalized VTT. Streamlining their content will make it read more like a computer algorithm of actions. Could even lead to the increased use of AI in the DM role for online games.
@@calebbaeten3610 Ahhh, interesting. I suspect we will continue to see a lot of online play, but from what I've seen it's something like a 65/35 split between Live and Online games for now. We'll see how that number changes over the years.
@TheTerrainWizard I’ll believe it when I see it announced, personally. Hasbro has a more than strong enough distribution system to handle their physical print books and they’re openly stated that books will continue to be available at preferred retailers. :)
Hated the garlic bread jokes, but not as much as the Nasty, Snarky snipe about the MM24 never coming out. Good topic, reasonable analysis, now you need to stop coming off as a self important jerk.
Sorry that I came across as anything but frustrated with the long wait ahead for the complete Monster manual. I certainly mean no snark or disrespect to the designers, I think they're doing great work! Thanks for the feedback regardless!
I just realized (after going back) that I think you might have taken my dragonball z joke and assumed I was being nasty. I should have added some b-roll of endless leveling up to soften that one. Regardless, again, nothin' but respect for the design team, even when I don't agree with them. :)
Legendary Actions were what made a creature legendary. It is what allowed one creature to have the presence of 4 creatures without adding 3 creatures to the field. The actions happen after a creatures turn so they wouldn't disrupt anything. Legendary Reaction are objectively more boring. They only are relevant when a creature does something, which can undersell the legendary-ness of the monster. While they can still allow a creature to keep up with action economy, they don't feel like they are turning one creature into four, rather it feels like... not that?
Largely my opinion, too, and especially with actions that interrupt the flow. I liked that the dragon included a trigger of “player ends a turn” essentially, which means that reaction is basically a legendary action.
Definitely understandable. I like having all the numbers on hand and feel like I'll get used to the columns thing, but from a visual standpoint its kind of meh.
Man, I really hate the visual design of the colored squares with the different modifiers to attributes (score, mod, and save I think). It's such a rookie mistake that any journeyman designer could have told you is VERY visually distracting / cluttering on the page, while actually REDUCING readability and emphasis. Just such a boneheaded design mistake.
@@DM-Timothy this comment end up longer than I expected, so I will apologize in advance for my English is self taught and still a WIP. Here my thoughts: the 2014 version it's not necessarily superior, it's that I've never seen many of these 'problems' as problems at all. I don't like the design choice of one only attack for you to flavor as tail, bite, etc. and most of all, a problem that I have with many feats in the past, I find lazy the approach to simply give spellcasting to a creature to solve the "lack of options" for the dragon, besides it will make GM search the book for the spell instead of have it described there. I don't like the approach of having the lair action removed and the frightful presence was such a fun and flavorful ability, if there's little effect or impact, better recalculate its effectiveness then just remove it all together. But this last one is just at flavor level. I don't mean to attack or offend anyone who liked it, but I'd rather give sorcerer level to my dragon than just give innate spells. Besides, I love to homebrew and play with game design. One day I'm gonna have my own ranger rework released, alongside some mechanics I'm working on. If you enjoy the way it's coming, be my guest and have fun!
@@marcelosantana3711 never a problem to give a long response and your English seemed perfectly fine to me, and I’m bilingual English/English (Aussie transplanted in the US). I appreciate you taking the time to detail your thoughts like this, and I can agree with plenty of what you had to say. Thank you!
Good morning! Todays technical critique: Don't wear that shirt while recording. The collar is loose and the undershirt shows. Your presentation is usually more professional and this makes you look very sloppy. The color isn't flattering either. You have a very clean cut, professional presentation as a person. Lean into that. Button up shirts over pullover, power colors over grey tones, Think costume over clothes.
I honestly LOVE this dragon's design so much. The interweaving of its innate magic, the raw damage, the high chance of it striking first, and that at-will Charm Monster?
Excellent, no notes.
It feels so much more like a green dragon of legend than the 2014 MM version, right?!
@@DM-Timothy Yup! I was already planning to introduce one to my setting, and now my players will be MORE than terrified enough to try challenging it.
I really like it!!
I am interested in seeing how they tackle all the other monsters before I pass any kind of final judgement. But looking at the Green Dragon (and Dragons in general) these are my thoughts:
1) Dragons have had spell casting ability off and on throughout D&D's history. I am glad to see it is back as an included feature instead of an option. Dragons in my campaign have had spell casting ability for all 48 years I have been DM'ing.
2) I would have liked to have seen them bring more options into how the breath weapon can be utilized. For example, in my campaign, Dragons can use their breath weapon in one of three ways - Cone that does 75% of the average damage, concentrated Stream (5 ' wide line) that has 2x range and does 100% of the average damage (for strafing attacks), and a focused Blast (30' range) that does intense structural damage against objects (walls, buildings, etc.).
3) I am not sure how I feel about the Legendary Reactions yet. I will have to see how it plays out, but it looks like they have re-flavored legendary actions as reactions but with the added condition triggers. Again, not sure what I think about that yet.
4) I will be putting the Frightful Presence and Wing Attacks back in as options (at least for ancient dragons). I feel they are part of the flavor when dealing with these creatures that are so primordial. Frightful Presence in particular because I have always seen it as an excellent counter to the PC party that insists on bringing an army with them to help fight the dragon. As Smaug so succinctly put it "My armor is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!"
5) Something I have done in my campaign is that I have baked reach into the size category of monsters, and it applies to them unless otherwise specified in the creature description. Large creatures have 10' reach. Huge creatures have 15' reach. Gargantuan creatures have 20' reach. I know that some monsters in the MM have reach listed in their respective attack descriptions, but it isn't a consistent thing and doesn't make sense that a big old monster can't hit anything that is further than 5' from its location. I bring this up because of the new Rend attack the new green dragon has. The tail attack it had previously works well with my reach rules so no need for me to add Tail as a separate attack option 😄. I also know they have reach listed in the dragon attacks, but I will opt for my homebrew reach options instead. It has worked out well so far and my players have come to know that they need to respect the space around a big monster when engaged in melee combat.
6) Numerical Buffs/Debuffs - I am perfectly fine with these as long as they don't go bat-shit crazy with them to the point it bogs everything down as we sit and make calculations. That is one of the reasons I like 5e because all that 'stuff' was removed/simplified from earlier versions.
7) I am good with the HP buff. I tend to give my dragons higher HP pools anyway, at least for the larger, older dragons. I also like what they did with the statistics and saves.
8) Initiative. I have been using Passive Initiative for a long while now. If I feel it needs to be changed up, I will roll initiative instead. Keeps my players hopping.
Great run down. I concur with a LOT of what you're saying. I definitely don't intend any of my excitement over the Dragon to reflect certainty that we won't see big changes when the actual book comes out. I'm just excited by possibilities! :D
I love the idea of dragons having more shape options for their breath weapons. It's something I've proposed before as a short. The movie Damsel I think really captures dragonbreath in a way that I'd have liked to see WotC imitate in statblocks. It'd also be an interesting set of optional rules to include in the DMG for easily customizing a lot of different monsters and the like.
I haven't played around with adding reach to all monsters, I usually felt like if a creature was large but did NOT get reach, there was a narrative reason for it, instead of a mechanical one, and I tried to lean into that in my descriptions to differentiate between something big and tall with a long reach vs for instance a dire wolf that had to get up close and personal. Have you found it changed your descriptions to add those kinds of reaches in?
@@DM-Timothy I tend to be very descriptive in my approach to narrating encounters/combat any way so baking reach mechanics into the creatures hasn't really changed the way I do things. The only time the reach 'issue' comes into play is when tackling monsters that really wouldn't have reach because of the type of attack they use. In that case I change the description I am using in the combat narrative to make it clear (without actually saying it) to the players that the reach of the creature is limited. I always try to keep common sense in sight when applying flexibility in the mechanics. While I appreciate RAW, I firmly believe in flexibility and fluidity so that ultimately I can maintain whatever narrative is being built.
@@unknowncomic4107 That sounds like a good balanced stance to me. I tell people I run a fairly RAW game, but there's almost always a need for flexibility in every session.
Thank you. I agree with with you on many points and am going to start using the variant breath weapon you proposed.
You came up with an 8 point comment? You have some time on your hands.
I honestly do love the fact that a monster in their lair seems to actually be stronger than when they're not in such a simple, but VERY impactful way. Thats genuinely a huge change
I like the elegance of it. It feels smooth. I’ll miss the uniqueness of the lair action, but this feels easy for game play. I didn’t cover it, but also included in the dragons page was a list of lair features terrain wise that would allow you to make the lair a more living (and dangerous) part of the encounter.
Thank you Tim. Great video! Level up. Your foresight seems spot on, again. Speaking of your prophetic vibe, what is with the foreshadowing at 54seconds? 😂
lol, that one wasn't meant to be prophetic at all... It was a dragonball Z joke... *sheepish grin*
I am sad that they removed the frightful presence. I have always loved dragons throughout the many editions of the game, but 5e seemed very bland. I always use spell casting, but I also include a couple of low level spells that seem thematic in the legendary actions. I like that they seem to have some advantages when in the lair, I just hope it doesn't replace lair actions completely.
I am sad it’s gone, but not, because it never felt impactful enough to be worth the dice rolls at the table. I quite enjoyed lair actions, too, but I think from an ease of play standpoint rolling them into legendary actions (fine, reactions) is probably a smart decision. Time will tell
I'm not sad to see frightful presence go. Having played PCs that were stymied about it that felt useless, and having DM's sessions where frightful presence neutered encounters, ignoring it is just more fun.
You can get the intended effect with good description - especially if there are NPCs present. "Nope-nope-nope!"
@@kurtoogle4576 Planning how to overcome the frightful presence of a powerful dragon was part of the fun. A DC 24 aura of fear is brutal to many characters. That meant potions, spells, tactics etc.
@@LucasRibeiro-po4pbI guess? Fear is a weird mechanic because it f*cks over melee characters who you would want to yk... be in melee. And it's hard to roleplay a brave character when a mechanic clearly says "no actually"
@@Tuskbumper I like some modicum of brutal mechanics like that. The way I GM is thst the world is bigger than the characters. If by your choice or unlucky dice you end up facing Klauth himself and you are not prepared, you will feel like you are facing the most powerful dragon in the world.
The playability and versatility of this version make me more eager to run them. WotC's design team is paying attention to how things are actually played and what the themes of creatures are.
That was my impression too. I’m very excited to see more of this kind of work!
AD&D 2e dragons were probably the best. They all had spells, and they wanted to make dragons cool and powerful in that edition, compared to 1e and 0e D&D.
2nd Ed dragons were my first dragons, so it’s probably why the bag of hit points approach upset me so much in 5e.
I hope that numerical bonuses are a rare thing, and are a monster thing. It's widespread use in dnd3e is one of the big reasons I didn't like it for tabletop.
They don’t appear to have been adopted as a typical thing in the PHB (and thus the player rules) from what I’ve seen so far. I suspect monsters are where we will see them by and large, if they even make the Final Cut at all.
I like the built-in spell casting. But no Lair Actions and no Frightful Presence? That was half their flavor!
Yeah. Though I originally disparaged Frightful Presence, apparently its impact has been greater at tables other than mine. I still think this dragon is scary enough even without mechanics, lol, but it’s a fair critique. Lair actions being gone is sad from a flavor standpoint, but something I didn’t highlight in the video was the descriptive text that gives a half dozen or so ideas for lair features that can be used against invaders, like honeycomb walls to allow poison breath weapon to pass through, which adds a lot back in, imo
@@DM-Timothy Okay, that's pretty cool about the lair feature ideas. I like that. Guess I'll have to wait and see, of course.
Thumbs down for the garlic bread joke
This comment killed me.
lol, sorry, just imagine how my family feels being stuck with my sense of humor…
I personally do not see the new reactions that negatively. Legendary Actions always had the feel of "3 reactions in a trenchcoat" to me anyways, and giving them specific triggers can eliminate some awkward situations. For example, if one character was standing next to a dragon but it was their allies turn first, they could end up getting tail slapped in the face 2 or 3 times before either their or the dragon's turn, even if the ally did not interact with the dragon or was actually unconscious on their turn. The new rend retaliation reaction at least gives players the option to not damage the dragon so their melee ally won't just get shredded out of turn.
That’s an interesting point. I do like that reactions having triggers means the group can learn those triggers and make tactical decisions based on them. I hadn’t looked at it from that angle, thank you!
The main upside of the new dragon is the good initiative, and I don't know if it is worth the nerf to its spellcasting. With any 4 7th level spells the 2014 have more potential there with a good spell choice.
Replacing lair action with just another reaction and another legendary resistance is terrible, and remove a lot of the unique thing in a dragon fight.
I guess that I will still use the old statblock for these dragons most of the times. I am glad the new PHB is compatible with the old monster manual.
I will miss the uniqueness of lair actions, it’s true. To your other point, one upside here is that you can both cast AND attack in one round, which seriously upsizes the potential of the spells in question. This dragon gets, for instance, and 8th level cloudkill that it can cast as part of an attack routine, or a 4th level dissonant whispers which it can cast every round and potentially trigger an OA to make up for the attack sacrificed for the casting to just add damage. Those are pretty potent options compared to a 7th level spell that takes your full round.
Sounds really good. Actually, the frightful presence always had a big effect in my games. Seems like they are balancing action economy.
Interesting! Funny how different tables feel these things so differently. And I definitely agree regarding the action economy balancing.
@@DM-Timothy OH, Definitely. There's skill and experience, or missing an important class ability. My current 5e campaign has no healers. Lol. Good times!
@@archersfriend5900 For reals! :D One of my groups went healerless and said "wow, we don't have a healer? We should really lean into how reckless we are and just do the craziest stuff we can imagine". Wild campaign.
@@DM-Timothy Lol!
I like legendary resistance I have no idea why people dislike it, I mostly think it's players who want their spells to land personally
I think Legendary Resistance is an important and necessary inclusion, but I like to make some minor adjustments to it so it has consequences for use. I think you're right that it's because people want their spells to land, but that's not necessarily as selfish as it sounds. Imagine you were playing a game of basketball and you sat on the sideline patiently waiting to get put in, then when you finally get on the field, the other team sends you back to the bench. Legendary Resistance sometimes feels like that. Finding ways to make it still keep the monster in play, but giving a feeling of forward momentum helps to make it less of a "unpleasant negation" and more of a "failing forward" moment.
@DM-Timothy I get it, I just have never thought of it that way, if my spell gets resisted I always frame it as "Well my spell got rid of that legendary resistance that's great!" I guess my owm positive thinking gives me a diffrent perspective on that lol.
@@devourlordasmodeus The power of positive thinking!! Don't quit that. :D
The most likely reason why WoTC is simplifying stat blocks for monsters isn't necessarily for DM ease of life, but rather to make it easier for them to go fully digital soon. Which will require use of the newest material in this "so called" backward compatible edition.
Interesting, I haven't heard any rumors of them moving away from publishing books traditionally. Thanks for the comment
@DM-Timothy more a comment on taking the D&D experience from primarily physical to primarily digital. That, and their eventual role out of their finalized VTT. Streamlining their content will make it read more like a computer algorithm of actions.
Could even lead to the increased use of AI in the DM role for online games.
@@calebbaeten3610 Ahhh, interesting. I suspect we will continue to see a lot of online play, but from what I've seen it's something like a 65/35 split between Live and Online games for now. We'll see how that number changes over the years.
@@DM-TimothyHasbro is moving to a subscriber based digital VTT platform for the game. WOTC recently ceased partnership with Penguin books.
@TheTerrainWizard I’ll believe it when I see it announced, personally. Hasbro has a more than strong enough distribution system to handle their physical print books and they’re openly stated that books will continue to be available at preferred retailers. :)
Hated the garlic bread jokes, but not as much as the Nasty, Snarky snipe about the MM24 never coming out. Good topic, reasonable analysis, now you need to stop coming off as a self important jerk.
Sorry that I came across as anything but frustrated with the long wait ahead for the complete Monster manual. I certainly mean no snark or disrespect to the designers, I think they're doing great work! Thanks for the feedback regardless!
I just realized (after going back) that I think you might have taken my dragonball z joke and assumed I was being nasty. I should have added some b-roll of endless leveling up to soften that one. Regardless, again, nothin' but respect for the design team, even when I don't agree with them. :)
Legendary Actions were what made a creature legendary. It is what allowed one creature to have the presence of 4 creatures without adding 3 creatures to the field. The actions happen after a creatures turn so they wouldn't disrupt anything.
Legendary Reaction are objectively more boring. They only are relevant when a creature does something, which can undersell the legendary-ness of the monster. While they can still allow a creature to keep up with action economy, they don't feel like they are turning one creature into four, rather it feels like... not that?
Largely my opinion, too, and especially with actions that interrupt the flow. I liked that the dragon included a trigger of “player ends a turn” essentially, which means that reaction is basically a legendary action.
I'm hating this spreadsheet design.
Definitely understandable. I like having all the numbers on hand and feel like I'll get used to the columns thing, but from a visual standpoint its kind of meh.
Man, I really hate the visual design of the colored squares with the different modifiers to attributes (score, mod, and save I think). It's such a rookie mistake that any journeyman designer could have told you is VERY visually distracting / cluttering on the page, while actually REDUCING readability and emphasis. Just such a boneheaded design mistake.
Interesting, I hadn’t thought to look at that aspect of things. Thanks!
I don't like having three 18 numbers that close together. Eyes are going to wander and circle before settling on what's needed.
Honestly, 3/10 for these changes
Fair enough. Why so? :) What makes the 2014 version superior in your view?
@@DM-Timothy this comment end up longer than I expected, so I will apologize in advance for my English is self taught and still a WIP. Here my thoughts: the 2014 version it's not necessarily superior, it's that I've never seen many of these 'problems' as problems at all. I don't like the design choice of one only attack for you to flavor as tail, bite, etc. and most of all, a problem that I have with many feats in the past, I find lazy the approach to simply give spellcasting to a creature to solve the "lack of options" for the dragon, besides it will make GM search the book for the spell instead of have it described there. I don't like the approach of having the lair action removed and the frightful presence was such a fun and flavorful ability, if there's little effect or impact, better recalculate its effectiveness then just remove it all together. But this last one is just at flavor level. I don't mean to attack or offend anyone who liked it, but I'd rather give sorcerer level to my dragon than just give innate spells. Besides, I love to homebrew and play with game design. One day I'm gonna have my own ranger rework released, alongside some mechanics I'm working on. If you enjoy the way it's coming, be my guest and have fun!
@@marcelosantana3711 never a problem to give a long response and your English seemed perfectly fine to me, and I’m bilingual English/English (Aussie transplanted in the US). I appreciate you taking the time to detail your thoughts like this, and I can agree with plenty of what you had to say. Thank you!
Good morning! Todays technical critique: Don't wear that shirt while recording. The collar is loose and the undershirt shows. Your presentation is usually more professional and this makes you look very sloppy. The color isn't flattering either. You have a very clean cut, professional presentation as a person. Lean into that. Button up shirts over pullover, power colors over grey tones, Think costume over clothes.
That's not a technical critique; that's your opinion about aesthetics. My pointing that out is a technical critique.
@@hawkname1234 if you say so.
Thanks for the critique! I generally wear what I wear, but it’s interesting to think of attire as being a part of the video prep process.
This is a deranged comment haha. Not useful or meaningful critique in the slightest.