D&D General 2024 Monster Creation

[Yaarel]

If that's what it takes, fine. Monster creation is one of the major aspects of DMing. It should be covered in enough detail for a novice dm to make a monster that holds up to scrutiny.

If anything ever needed to see UA playtesting first, it is a monster building system.

 

[Yaarel]

The D&D designers make monsters, a lot of them. If they can't give fans guidelines for creating new monsters, then something is off. Just tell fans how they do it.

13th Age has an excellent monster creation system because the book gives us procedures the designers used themselves.

They do tell us every now and then. We know they approach monster building as more an art than a science. They frequently override any "in house" formulas.

 

[the Jester]

@the Jester

Maybe create a thread here in Enworld for how to create new monsters, reverse engineer the monster math, establish the values of various features and level appropriateness, and tweak it according to experiences and critiques.

I could, but this is such a basic component of dming that I feel like the designers really ought to include it. It's different in early editions, where there really is no math behind monster creation, but since 3e, there have very clearly been guidelines or rules that the designers use. Keeping those guidelines behind a veil is misguided at best.

In other words, I shouldn't have to create a thread to do what the designers should include in the rules, especially given that they were in the 2014 DMG.

I am still hoping that they will be in the new MM. If not, that's a massive misstep that shows such disdain for homebrew that I probably won't actually run the new version of the game. In fact, since 4e, there have been a ton of elements that make it harder to homebrew- over-reliance on digital tools that can't easily integrate homebrew material being one such element. Such elements are bad for the game, IMHO; homebrew is essential to allowing groups to play the game how they want to. Stripping all the optional rules from the new DMG is a decision that I don't much care for, but I hope it is a sign that we might get a book of options and changes similar to 3e's Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Yaarel]

Actually, the 2024 "Creating a Monster" system is telling. It is mainly reflavoring, but it adds a list of stats that the designers have decided dont really matter in terms of balance, such as resistances.

 

[mamba]

But it's not an engine.

Only 3e, 4e, and 5e provided rules to make monsters and only 4e didn't screw it up.

This is like family restaurant taking sushi off the menu because they lacked a sushi chef.

we disagree on the relevance of monster creation. If they had time and space for bastions and lore, they have no excuse about not having had time or space for monster creation

 

[Minigiant]

we disagree on the relevance of monster creation. If they had time and space for bastions and lore, they have no excuse about not having had time or space for monster creation

Bastions and Lore is shinies to claim the book has new stuff.

They displaces less shiny stuff.

Sure I would have loved monster creation rules, but something has to be cut for it. And not Bastions or Lore.

 

[mamba]

Bastions and Lore is shinies to claim the book has new stuff.

They displaces less shiny stuff.

this is going in circles, you said basically the same thing a few replies back when I questioned whether bastions are the new shiny or the new scrap heap that gets the complaints

I hope the monster creation makes it into the MM, if it is gone I consider this a big blunder by WotC and no new dull sheen bastions can make up for that

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Keep me informed. I definitely want a monster building system that uses character levels and eliminates CR.

The trick is, they need an extraordinarily high amount of hit points to survive a round of attacks from player characters, but cant deal too much damage or they will one-shot a player character.

But it is still possible to think in terms of character levels.

You are correct. Monsters need way more hit points relative to their damage output to "work" the best. Since I like much closer PC/NPC parity than that creates, I've been trying out a few things in my own design. Basically, I've been trying to lean into special abilities that provide survivability, similar to what PCs have but simpler. Another problem with monsters is when they have too few attacks, because it becomes too easy for parties to negate individual attacks, making those monsters rarely hit. I've been working on dealing with that by providing bonus action and reaction attacks (again, similar to how they do these things for PCs...), or area effect attacks. I'm trying to balance simplicity with the feel I'm going for. I've just started testing out some new monsters I've designed with principles and practices in mind.

 

[Yaarel]

I could, but this is such a basic component of dming that I feel like the designers really ought to include it. It's different in early editions, where there really is no math behind monster creation, but since 3e, there have very clearly been guidelines or rules that the designers use. Keeping those guidelines behind a veil is misguided at best.

In other words, I shouldn't have to create a thread to do what the designers should include in the rules, especially given that they were in the 2014 DMG.

I am still hoping that they will be in the new MM. If not, that's a massive misstep that shows such disdain for homebrew that I probably won't actually run the new version of the game. In fact, since 4e, there have been a ton of elements that make it harder to homebrew- over-reliance on digital tools that can't easily integrate homebrew material being one such element. Such elements are bad for the game, IMHO; homebrew is essential to allowing groups to play the game how they want to. Stripping all the optional rules from the new DMG is a decision that I don't much care for, but I hope it is a sign that we might get a book of options and changes similar to 3e's Unearthed Arcana.

I agree a monster building system is central. At the same time, I feel it is something that the community needs to do together.

I feel, we are getting a handle on how design player options that balance well. Now we need to figure out how to make monster options balance well.

 

[Yaarel]

You are correct. Monsters need way more hit points relative to their damage output to "work" the best. Since I like much closer PC/NPC parity than that creates, I've been trying out a few things in my own design. Basically, I've been trying to lean into special abilities that provide survivability, similar to what PCs have but simpler. Another problem with monsters is when they have too few attacks, because it becomes too easy for parties to negate individual attacks, making those monsters rarely hit. I've been working on dealing with that by providing bonus action and reaction attacks (again, similar to how they do these things for PCs...), or area effect attacks. I'm trying to balance simplicity with the feel I'm going for. I've just started testing out some new monsters I've designed with principles and practices in mind.

I notice, if the "monster levels" are using a d12 for hit points, things somewhat work.

Maybe the assumption can be, one monster per character, but then a "solo" counts as four separate characters (with four times the attacks, etcetera).