D&D 5E Vecna: Eve of Ruin Coming 2024

Just revealed by WotC, a multiverse spanning adventure which goes up to level 20 and features cameos from famous D&D characters. More info when we have it!

Update--WotC has taken down the promo image and replaced it with one without a release date. See more here.

 

[Parmandur]

While it true we don’t have all information yet, we do have a good idea of where things of going: we have what WotC has said (CRs will not change, monsters will be better balanced, they are making changes to make them more interesting/ easier to play) and the changes they have made in recent books (which they said are previews of monster changes) which match these goals. Fizban’s, Bigby’s, and Planescape display this philosophy well, MMotM too.

Basically, monsters will get minor tweaks to:

1. Make them reflect their CR more accurately (if needed)
2. Make them easier to play (removing slot based spellcasting)
3. Make them more interesting (one unique thing)

Those changes (some will not even need changes to comply) make the monsters different, but don’t (in theory) change the challenge of the monster. That is why (in theory) you should be able to use either ‘14 or ‘24 monsters in adventures from before or after 2024. They do not need conversion or swapping out because they are the same CR.

Now, it remains to be seen if they can execute that plan, but that is clearly the intent. So I think that your idea that monsters have to swapped out like 1e to 5e is clearly not the intent and has less supporting evidence

I don't even think we need to take them at their word st this point, we have huge numbers of the new style Monster since Ravenloft. Proof is in the pudding.

 

[Reynard]

No, it really isn't. Again, they have gotten better at designing the modular bits for the system, bit the structure doesn't need any change...whixhbis why they haven't been testing any structural change.

Make 3 "Hard" encounters. One with a single monster. One with a pair of monsters. One with 6 monsters. Run them for your group.

Then come back and tell me the system works "fine."

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Which is a problem. The system as presented is actively worse than useless: it gives bad outcomes if you follow it.

Are you talking about create a monster rules or encounter rules. My DM is very vocal about how much he likes the DMG rules and how, if followed, gives very good results. I can’t speak for the encounter rules since he doesn’t talk about them.

 

[Reynard]

Are you talking about create a monster rules or encounter rules. My DM is very vocal about how much he likes the DMG rules and how, if followed, gives very good results. I can’t speak for the encounter rules since he doesn’t talk about them.

I am talking about the encounter rules, but they are linked because the monsters in the MM don't actually follow the monster creation CR rules.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Make 3 "Hard" encounters. One with a single monster. One with a pair of monsters. One with 6 monsters. Run them for your group.

Then come back and tell me the system works "fine."

That is extremely dependent on the group as well isn’t it?

 

[Parmandur]

Make 3 "Hard" encounters. One with a single monster. One with a pair of monsters. One with 6 monsters. Run them for your group.

Then come back and tell me the system works "fine."

Prefer a larger number of Medium Encounters, myself. But what about your results from trying this do you think is "not working"...?

 

[Reynard]

That is extremely dependent on the group as well isn’t it?

Sure. That's part of the problem. But you could do the same with a "standard" party and still.see how variable and broken it is. The point is this: you cannot claim that 2024 is both taking pains to resolve encounter and monster design AND simultaneously claim that it is seamlessly compatible with 2014. It is impossible. Either 2024 does solve the problems (eg MotM) or is makes significant changes that mean "compatibility" is only possible with conversion. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I am talking about the encounter rules, but they are linked because the monsters in the MM don't actually follow the monster creation CR rules.

Ok. However that statement is not entirely correct. WotC always said they don’t use the DMG, they have their own internal spreadsheet that they use. They only recently explained that the DMG was an attempt to express their spreadsheet, but fell short a bit. And according to my DM, who has made hundreds of monsters and checked a bunch of MM CRs, the MM CRs match the DMG CRs most of the time. I think the issue is the process is complex and mistakes were made in the first product.

 

[Parmandur]

Ok. However that statement is not entirely correct. WotC always said they don’t use the DMG, they have their own internal spreadsheet that they use. They only recently explained that the DMG was an attempt to express their spreadsheet, but fell short a bit. And according to my DM, who has made hundreds of monsters and checked a bunch of MM CRs, the MM CRs match the DMG CRs most of the time. I think the issue is the process is complex and mistakes were made in the first product.

They had an improved version in Xanathar's thwt matched the complex spreadsheet tool more closely in results. They've been getting better at it, and making better tools.

 

[Reynard]

Prefer a larger number of Medium Encounters, myself. But what about your results from trying this do you think is "not working"...?

Solo monsters don't work in 5E unless given special abilities. High numbers of monsters break the action economy and can easily lead to a TPK if the GM doesn't actively choose to avoid it. Monster pairs actually work pretty good, over all.

And that isn't even to bring up how badly implemented individual CRs are.