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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

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.

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?

No, only one die. If it turns up 5 or 6, A is recharged. If it turns up 4 or 5, C is recharged

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

My point is that I would have fewer complaints about 5.5 if it was published by a company that didn't have WotC's influence on the industry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."

That it what I meant. For me it amounts to the same thing.

 

[dave2008]

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.

This is, I believe, incorrect on many different points.

1. I believe they do have a monster creation system, they have even told us about it before. The 2014 monster creations rules were a rushed attempt to explain there system (which involves several linked spreadsheets). It, as they have admitted, did not translate perfectly. This is all public information.*
2. I think the idea that 5e24 was "rushed" is laughable as they have been actively working on it for years and have even more years of experience with 5e14 to draw upon. Are there mistakes, do people disagree with some choices, yes. Nothing is perfect or perfect for everyone. That doesn't mean it was rushed. Heck, you could make the argument that this was the least rushed RPG updated ever!
3. Disregarding my first statement, the 2014 monster creation rules are not sufficient for higher CR monsters. They have told us that higher CR monsters are more threatening in 2024 than 2014 and early previews back this up. For example, the CR 23 Empyrean is about 35-40% more threaten in 2024 vs 2014. If you use the 2014 monster guidelines it would give you a CR 25 or 26 for the new Empyrean IIRC. So, you can't simple use the old to make the new.

However, I do plan to create my own monster by stats table and monster creation guide to conform to these new updates. I have already started in fact. However, if WotC surprises us and releases a monster creation tool on Beyond when the MM launches I may abandon my guide and get back to focusing on my monsters by level guide instead.

 

[dave2008]

No, only one die. If it turns up 5 or 6, A is recharged. If it turns up 4 or 5, C is recharged

Then I am confused by option B and C. On is a 4,5 and the other is a 4,6. Why are they called out like this, what is the point of having one stop at 5 and the other at 6? This seems unnecessarily fussy to me. But maybe I am not understanding something.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then I am confused by option B and C. On is a 4,5 and the other is a 4,6. Why are they called out like this, what is the point of having one stop at 5 and the other at 6? This seems unnecessarily fussy to me. But maybe I am not understanding something.

Because not all 3 should recharge at the same time.

But you can also have a different example

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

So with a 4, A and C is recharged.

With a 5 or 6, A and B are recharged. B AND c never recharge together.

Or.

1, 2, 3: recharge A
4, 5, 6: recharge B.

Or whatever combination you like.

Important: only one die is rolled.

But you just showed, why they probably went for a different route.

Overlapping events and sets/subsets seem too difficult.

 

[dave2008]

Because not all 3 should recharge at the same time.

But you can also have a different example

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

So with a 4, A and C is recharged.

With a 5 or 6, A and B are recharged. B AND c never recharge together.

Or.

1, 2, 3: recharge A
4, 5, 6: recharge B.

Or whatever combination you like.

Important: only one die is rolled.

But you just showed, why they probably went for a different route.

Overlapping events and sets/subsets seem too difficult.

I guessed that is what you were going for, but I thought it could also be a typo too. More fussy than it needs to be IMO.

I must say I have a love hate relationship with complexity and monster design. I have an instinct to put everything I want or believe a monster should be able to do in a stat block. But that is just not realistic and quickly becomes cumbersome. Finding the correct balance of variety, flexibility, and simplicity is tough.

I was just watching a video by some veteran monster designers/publishers and they were really railing on the type of inclusive design that has been common in my monsters for years. By inclusive I mean including in the stat block everything/most of what a monster can do. For example, they hated that monster stat blocks might have a dagger (1d4) and sword (1d8) in the stat block when clearly you will always use the sword because it causes more damage. They even complained about this directly to the D&D designers! I don't know if they are correct, but they have a lot more cred and experience than I do so it makes me think for sure. I can see both sides, but I am not sure if one is better or the are just different mindsets.

 

[TravDoc42]

More spooky Undead art, from the newest video!

 

[M_Natas]

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."

There were no rules for creating spelljammer systems or planetoids, for example. All they did was "look at the example systems in the adventure".

Like if you wanted to homebrew your own system, they left you hanging. Or how to facilitate space fantasy adventures and what to look out for.

Like, just compare it to Van Richtens Guide to Ravenloft, which gave you way more help and guidance to create your own domain of dread.

 

[abirdcall]

I guessed that is what you were going for, but I thought it could also be a typo too. More fussy than it needs to be IMO.

I must say I have a love hate relationship with complexity and monster design. I have an instinct to put everything I want or believe a monster should be able to do in a stat block. But that is just not realistic and quickly becomes cumbersome. Finding the correct balance of variety, flexibility, and simplicity is tough.

I was just watching a video by some veteran monster designers/publishers and they were really railing on the type of inclusive design that has been common in my monsters for years. By inclusive I mean including in the stat block everything/most of what a monster can do. For example, they hated that monster stat blocks might have a dagger (1d4) and sword (1d8) in the stat block when clearly you will always use the sword because it causes more damage. They even complained about this directly to the D&D designers! I don't know if they are correct, but they have a lot more cred and experience than I do so it makes me think for sure. I can see both sides, but I am not sure if one is better or the are just different mindsets.

The best example of this are mages. Even their cantrips should probably not be used at all in an encounter and certainly not the 1d4 dagger.

Good thing they also didn't include unarmed strikes and shove DC and everything else they 'could' do.

So much less work for th DM to suggest the right actions for the monster.