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

[dave2008]

Never said it was better.

My apologies. When you said: "...as they were never used to their full potential:"

I took that to mean you thought your example was using them closer to their full potential and therefore better.

But to be clear: in my version every monster only rolls once.

Yes, that is how it worked in my design as well. The issue with the DMs that tried it was having multiple choices for what that roll does and having to do it every round. I'm not saying I really get it, but that was the feedback. It is not like I removed it from those monsters, so I haven't put to much stock in it, but just thought it was good to know others experience.

And following would also be possible:

5,6: recharge A
4,6: recharge B
4,5: recharge C

So you are saying roll 2 dice is that correct? If so, I stand corrected. I never entertained rolling two dice (and that is not what it was in 4e either). I had one die, one roll, like:

1-2: recharge A
3-4: recharge B
5-6: recharge C

or, if I wanted to change the probabilities:

1-3: recharge A
4-5: recharge B
6: recharge C

I am not really seeing the benefit of rolling two dice. Can you explain your thought on that?

 

[Belen]

The monster rules don't need to fill up that much space! It was not a space issue IMO. Of course I can't really figure out why without going to nefarious speculation and that is not where I like to go!

They could have just built a monster creator on DDB that you could only access it you own the DMG.

 

[dave2008]

They could have just built a monster creator on DDB that you could only access it you own the DMG.

Well that was an option for the nefarious speculation I didn't want to do. That may well be the case, and IIRC, they hinted that was coming. I just didn't expect it to only be located on Beyond, which gets us to, in some people's perspective, the nefarious part.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm also running a spelljammer campaign right now, but I had to create 60 additional pages of rules just to make it work. For space combat, tables for planetoid and system generation, more diverse spelljamming helms, magic items, ship upgrades, wildspace hazards and so on ...
(At least I could turn it into a DMs Guild product, so far it is the only german spelljammer product ever - sadly they haven't translated the spelljammer box set to german, because it probably sold so badly).

Like, before the box set I got myself the 2e spelljammer box set (PDF from the DMs Guild) and the 2e astromundi cluster book (pod from DMs Guild) and like, the quality and amount of content to help you run your own games is like night and day between 2e and 5e.

Yeah, it seems clear to me that WotC never intended their Spelljammer rules to do much more than support the included adventure.

 

[Belen]

Well that was an option for the nefarious speculation I didn't want to do. That may well be the case, and IIRC, they hinted that was coming. I just didn't expect it to only be located on Beyond, which gets us to, in some people's perspective, the nefarious part.

If they create rules for it when it releases for offline, then it would be fine.

Personally, I would guess that they do not have a solid creation bible for monster creation that lends itself to being able to make monsters by us normal folk. A lot of 5.5 feels a bit unfinished and you can tell that some stuff was rushed.

Of course, they are still selling 2014 so you can get the monster rules from there and create away. It only take a few adjustments to get to 2024 style.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My strong gut feeling is that if D&D2024 was released by an independent 3pp at the quality and production value we have seen these three books it would be lauded across the land as the product everyone was waiting for.

I agree that 5.5 would make a great indie 5e product, one that in that scenario wouldn't be so influential as to practically force the rest of 3pp to follow their lead.

I simply don't think we need one company to rule them all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They could have just built a monster creator on DDB that you could only access it you own the DMG.

I'd be surprised if that wasn't in the works. It's a great idea from a business standpoint.

 

[Belen]

I'd be surprised if that wasn't in the works. It's a great idea from a business standpoint.

Yep. Think of the data mining. They could release the player created monsters into the wild and the most popular ones get taken for official releases.

This way, they crowd source a lot of design. It may not be great for the current devs though.

 

[Sulicius]

-snip-

I simply don't think we need one company to rule them all.

No-one here thinks that, or are you being given the impression otherwise?

 

[Demetrios1453]

I'm also running a spelljammer campaign right now, but I had to create 60 additional pages of rules just to make it work. For space combat, tables for planetoid and system generation, more diverse spelljamming helms, magic items, ship upgrades, wildspace hazards and so on ...
(At least I could turn it into a DMs Guild product, so far it is the only german spelljammer product ever - sadly they haven't translated the spelljammer box set to german, because it probably sold so badly).

Like, before the box set I got myself the 2e spelljammer box set (PDF from the DMs Guild) and the 2e astromundi cluster book (pod from DMs Guild) and like, the quality and amount of content to help you run your own games is like night and day between 2e and 5e.

Odd, I ran Spelljammer with the rules as present in the 5e set, and it worked just fine.

I suspect you're using "work" not in the meaning of, well, "functioning," but in the meaning of "working at a level of complexity that i wish it to work at."