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

[dave2008]

It's more about money.

Monster creation is 10-20 pages they don't want to spend on printing and commissioning.

Maybe, but I doubt that is the reason. I also don't think it would take 10-20 pages. i plan to prove that in just over a month or so too!

 

[Remathilis]

It's more about money.

Monster creation is 10-20 pages they don't want to spend on printing and commissioning.

I think it's less about page count and more about a set of rules that new DMs will find confusing and old DMs inadequate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's more about money.

Good Monster creation is 10-20 pages they don't want to spend on printing, playtesting, and commissioning art.

They could save a lot of money if they used less art.

 

[Echohawk]

If they are concerned about social blowback from their choices (including choosing not to change), and it seems clear to me that they are concerned, then it's fear.

I'm wary of contributing further to this topic drift but my dictionary tells me that fear is specifically "an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm". I don't believe that WotC's designers face any threats of danger, pain, or harm, so I think concern is a much more appropriate word than fear here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it's less about page count and more about a set of rules that new DMs will find confusing and old DMs inadequate.

How do they know that? I don't recall a poll to that effect.

 

[Minigiant]

I think it's less about page count and more about a set of rules that new DMs will find confusing and old DMs inadequate.

And such a system would take 20 pages on conservative estimate.

If you're going to do Monster creation right for new DMs, old DMs, and worldbuilders, adventure writers, You really are looking at a whole extra chapter

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm wary of contributing further to this topic drift but my dictionary tells me that fear is specifically "an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm". I don't believe that WotC's designers face any threats of danger, pain, or harm, so I think concern is a much more appropriate word than fear here.

Perhaps, but I'm sure there are threats of danger, pain and harm to their profit margin if they make the wrong choice.

But you're right, this is off-topic so I'll leave it there.

 

[Remathilis]

How do they know that? I don't recall a poll to that effect.

People have been complaining about how the rules in the 2014 DMG were bad since 2014. WotC admitted they use different math for official monsters. The sheer number of monsters who don't adhere to them (before and after) is staggering, and the fact there are countless versions of creatures who exploit the system to create OP monstrosities that fall within the "fair" parameters of the rules are testament to their inadequacy.

Are they better than no rules? Debatable. Were the old rules actually good? No.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People have been complaining about how the rules in the 2014 DMG were bad since 2014. WotC admitted they use different math for official monsters. The sheer number of monsters who don't adhere to them (before and after) is staggering, and the fact there are countless versions of creatures who exploit the system to create OP monstrosities that fall within the "fair" parameters of the rules are testament to their inadequacy.

Are they better than no rules? Debatable. Were the old rules actually good? No.

Not really relevant to my concern. What makes them think publishing new rules would be alternately confusing and/or inadequate, such that they have to keep them in-house?

 

[mamba]

It's more about money.

Good Monster creation is 10-20 pages they don't want to spend on printing, playtesting, and commissioning art.

I don’t know, they already have some rules they are using, even if those are more complex than what they would want to print, and art for monster building is minimal (not to mention that they clearly had quite the art budget to begin with)