Community

I'm aware that you all have not gotten to the point of playing with monster design and such, but I wanted to put in my 2 copper on what I would like to see in the iteration of D&D next, from a DM's perspective

Things done right

XP budgets: I started DM'ing 4e, and the concrete XP monster system was perfect. There was no guessing, and it provided what I needed to know for encounter design as a new DM. Those who are more experienced will tweak differently and can ignore suggested budgets, but as it is, it's perfect

Monsters work differently than PC's: I know in 3e, the monsters (like dragons) worked the same as PC's as far as spells cast, and basic attacks. I like how in 4e the monster may have completely different design than the PC's that cut the complexity way down

Treasure system: Treasure system was great. It broke down how much the PC's should get and what their items were. Again, a new DM didn't have to do nearly as much guesswork.

Solo monster design: Solo design is now fantastic. Any solo from the monster vault provides a threat, feels like a solo, and avoids several mistakes of early (MM1 early) design.

Things to improve

Simplify monster design more: The monsters are still far easier to understand and use compared to 3e, but they can still be made better. For one, I think the number of abilities for standards and elites needs to be cut down. Monsters should be designed with 2-3 abilities, 1 or 2 of which give it a unique mechanic or flavor (like the kobold shifty power). This will demand some good design choices to make monsters dynamic but simple. As a DM, I may only use a monster one encounter and never see it again. I don't have the luxury to learn and master the tactics of a monster, so I need to be able to use all it's abilities right off. And if I have 3-4 different monster types, then I should be able to understand how they work together quickly.

For example, artillery need a way to disengage melee characters. You can add another ability, or allow their basic attack to grant them shift 1 before the attack. This satisfies their ability to deal with melee without adding another ability for the DM to consider.

Elites and Solos (or whatever their next incarnation is) should be more complicated and allowed more abilities.

Provide an monster algorithm: This one is a bit controversial but here is my thought. In Castle Ravenloft and the D&D adventure board games, each monster had a specific algorithm so the person controlling it didn't have to think. Now, DM's can think, but having suggested algorithms will make us much more effective at using monsters, or giving them an "AI" that gives them a certain feel. For instance, let's say a zombie's algorithm is just, "attack closest enemy, move directly toward enemy to do so," but the necromancer will move away from enemies, summon zombies between himself and others.

Consider this, what if you had 1 monster but allowed DM's to chose different algorithms? One that is more risky, or provides more support. I know this could get tricky, and DM's can use their judgement for algorithms, but as a DM you probably will just default to what you would normally do instead of providing a dynamic encounter. This is already done with adventures and suggested tactics, but since combat is already mechanic heavy, how much would it hurt to give DM's another tool to add flavor and dynamics to a fight

Make traps more threatening: As it stands, few traps are an equal threat to a monster of the same level. Traps are usually immobile, and unlike monsters may not discriminate friend vs. foe. Either reduce the XP value of traps or (better) find some way to make them more threatening, such as more damage or worse effects. A minion in a fight can't be ignored because it will seek and attack the PC's but if there is a ward minion trap, the PC's may never even walk into it.

Whatever high tier is, make sure monsters can threaten players: In 4e epic tier, the game simply breaks down. PC's have so many exception based powers that throwing 2 level 21 solos at a level 21 party provides a moderate threat despite the XP budget. My experience may have been unique, but my first epic tier DM was disenchanting. 

If blind becomes a status effect, please find some way to simplify and balance it better: In one of my games, a player played the essentials ranger who could blind someone until end of turn twice a turn. Unless I gave the monsters blindsight, it was nearly the same as stunning them, and it added extra rolls and math. Effects like daze, slow, and weaken require no extra rolls and little extra math. For blind, I had to decide which player to look for, roll their perception (which is a minor trait that I had to hunt for), and when it failed, I basically went, "well crap" because they were useless unless they had a blast/burst power, which most monsters don't. I would suggest blind just giving an automatic -5 to attacks and consider them slowed. In this case the DM does not need to make any extra rolls, or spend time deciding whether the monster is smart enough to look for the least stealthy character, and when designers give something the ability to blind the automatic effects make them realize it is the 2nd worst status effect (below stun or incapacitated). I realize this is specific, but that status effect caused me more frustration and extra work than any other one.

These are just suggestions from my viewpoint, and anyone is free to take them or leave them.

Hmmm, thank you for feedback guys.

Concerning monster algorithms, I view them as a tool to be used or discarded at DM's preference. It would be the same as the treasure table and XP budget. They are meant as guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

Like all people, I am busy. I have also learned through life experience that attention is a limited resource. If I use all of my attention at school (or work or family depending on who you are), I may not have as much left over for parts of the game. Things like story are really fun to me, but things like using the msot effective tactics may not be something that comes naturally to me, or I may doof it up on an off day. If a monster algorithm is included, it is a tool, just like a treasure or XP budget chart to guide me when I don't really know what I am doing. Unless I make the monster myself, the strategy of the monster may not be obvious to me just from reading powers. However, I agree with Bronzebeard that monster simplification would remove the need for my suggestion, but it might be a good idea for solo's that require more effective use of tactics. Again, this is just a discussion not a demand.

For blind, I could be reading it wrong, and I also know my experience is more unique, but it is a status effect that most people do not know completely off the top of their head. Dazed, we know is 1 standard action and you grant combat advantage. Blind, we can understand conceptually, but we may not know all the rules surrounding it. It also seems to have more rules and rolls than other conditions.

Which segways into another request that came to my head

Timing effects so that they don't slow down play: Conditional effects can occur at different parts of a player's turn. "Enemies that start their turn in this aura take 5 damage," "Enemies that end their turn in the aura are slowed". Now, I understand that tactically, something ocurring at the beginning vs. end of someone's turn can be a large difference. However, whenever I have a monster that has an aura or effect that does something to the player at the beginning of their turn (e.g. ongoing damage), slows them down, even if for 5 seconds. I notice this happens plenty of times when players have to do crunch on their turn, and if we were able to move it to the end of their turn, then you could move onto the next player while they are doing the crunch. It is not a matter of removing or mitigating effects, but changing their timing so that more crunch happens outside the players turn. It would speed up play, and engage players outside of their turn.

I don't know how much thought they put into the timing of these kinds of effects (monsters abilities seem to have them in every possible timing), but with some forethought I think they could design them to speed up play. 

I almost completly agree with what the OP liked, and see the reason for a few of the changes presented.  Among them is not, however, monster simplification; the most complex of monsters, Solos who are gods, have at max 14 powers, few of them being used more than twice in a battle.  The common power amount for monsters, including traits, standard/minor/move/free/triggered actions, and other actions, are somewhere between 6 and 9.  That seems perfectly reasonable to me.