D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)

[abirdcall]

Sufficient, probably. But more detail is always nice in a tool.

If we assume that the size of the book can't be bigger then pages devoted to that would mean fewer monsters.

I didn't use the pages from the 2014 DMG and I wouldn't use them now so I'm happy they're not in it.

It is far easier for me to take in all the monsters and then use those for inspiration on how I want a new one to function and then find a monster that is the CR I want and use similar numbers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Are you actively trying not to see the changes?

Mod Note:

Posts like this can be read as pretty snarky personal digs. Do better going forward.

 

[the Jester]

The issue is 5e
It's math wasn't designed to be simple.

5e was designed on vibes.
Trying to reverse engineer "vibes" into a simple system with low criticism when you failed the first vibecheck is nearly impossible for the main IP holder unless you are willing to dedicate the pages to it.

Do you have any evidence for the "vibes" assertion, at least as far as it trumping math goes? Because I don't think that's accurate at all.

I'd posit that the math is simple enough to be put into a chart similar to the one in the 2014 DMG. I could be wrong, but I see no reason that a similar section couldn't be in one of the books. And it absolutely should be; the new game should expand and add to, not subtract from, the guidance in the old one.

 

[Sulicius]

The HP bloat is real.

Well, they had too little health.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If we assume that the size of the book can't be bigger then pages devoted to that would mean fewer monsters.

I didn't use the pages from the 2014 DMG and I wouldn't use them now so I'm happy they're not in it.

It is far easier for me to take in all the monsters and then use those for inspiration on how I want a new one to function and then find a monster that is the CR I want and use similar numbers.

I have used those rules at least once a month starting early 2017. They were invaluable to my campaigns and getting my homebrew content published. Reskinning monsters is great. I do it all the time. But many DMs need and regularly use the deeper monster creation rules. While them not being in the new books doesn’t affect me much, I will always have the old DMG, I think they should be present in the new rules to help new DMs in the future as well as inform older DMs on how 5e monster design has changed in the past decade. I consider the new books not including them to be a significant downgrade.

 

[pukunui]

WOTC is actually better off designing a monster builder on DND beyond that lets you pick a CR, monster role, theme, and equipment then do all the math behind the scenes.

I, for one, would greatly appreciate something like that!

 

[Minigiant]

No, that is incorrect. It doesn't seem like you know what you talking about on this subject so I will agree to disagree and end it here.

They got some of the rules wrong and some of the rules were not read by fans because the 2014 only dedicated 10 pages to monster creation.

My estimation is that WOTC would have to dedicate at least 16-20 pages to monster creation from scratch to do a good job.

My belief simply is:
I don't think WOTC was willing to dedicate 20 pages with art to teaching people to create 2024 monsters from scratch.

 

[dave2008]

They got some of the rules wrong and some of the rules were not read by fans because the 2014 only dedicated 10 pages to monster creation.

My estimation is that WOTC would have to dedicate at least 16-20 pages to monster creation from scratch to do a good job.

My belief simply is:
I don't think WOTC was willing to dedicate 20 pages with art to teaching people to create 2024 monsters from scratch.

Since others have done it in much fewer pages, your belief doesn't hold a lot of water with me. However, where we probably diverge is in what we each define as "a good job." That is subjective so it is possible is quite possible we are both correct from our own perspective.

 

[Minigiant]

Do you have any evidence for the "vibes" assertion, at least as far as it trumping math goes? Because I don't think that's accurate at all.

The math was off.
Monsters had too little HP, dealt too little damage, had too few range attacks, too low AC, and had too limited control and support options.
The monsters too often just had "numbers" that didn't fit.

 

[dave2008]

Do you have any evidence for the "vibes" assertion, at least as far as it trumping math goes? Because I don't think that's accurate at all.

I'd posit that the math is simple enough to be put into a chart similar to the one in the 2014 DMG. I could be wrong, but I see no reason that a similar section couldn't be in one of the books. And it absolutely should be; the new game should expand and add to, not subtract from, the guidance in the old one.

I agree a new chart (and the following guidelines) could be added to the MM or DMG (or another book down the road). I also agree that it would be very much be appreciated. However, I don't feel it is a requirement or that it is something I am entitled too. As I have said before, I made my own 1e monsters for 25 years and never had any guidelines !