D&D (2024) Why No Monster Creation Rules in D&D 2024?

[Charlaquin]

Disagree. You're basically saying it's too hard. It can and has been done with good results, you just have to put the effort in to make the best system you can, with plenty of options and a solid frame.

I’m not saying it’s too hard, I’m saying the results would be boring even if done well, and that actual play experience always trumps theory.

 

[Oofta]

I don't believe anyone is saying we need monster creation rules. But they would be very helpful to some folks, emphasize D&D as a toolkit (a very appealing idea to some) and removing them in 5.5 literally takes something away that the game used to have. They've done that in several places lately, so I think irritation is warranted, even if you don't care or feel it is valuable personally.

Not sure where you get the idea that I'm disagreeing with you at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m not saying it’s too hard, I’m saying the results would be boring even if done well, and that actual play experience always trumps theory.

You're welcome to assume so, but I just don't believe that's the case. Also, playtesting your rules fixes your theory problem, so I still don't see the merit in your "don't bother putting anything in the book" stance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not sure where you get the idea that I'm disagreeing with you at all.

You said you never needed monster creation rules because you just tweaked the monsters yourself. That implies agreement with the notion of not including them. If I misread you I apologize.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're welcome to assume so, but I just don't believe that's the case. Also, playtesting your rules fixes your theory problem,

If you playtest and make changes based on the results of your playtesting, you’re no longer following a formula, which is exactly what I was advocating for…

so I still don't see the merit in your "don't bother putting anything in the book" stance.

That is not and never has been my stance. I would much rather they have put monster building guidelines in the book. Someone suggested that there not only be monster building guidelines, but that all monsters in the book be built using them, which I think would have boring results. Playtesting, and making changes to monsters based on the results of that playtesting, is important.

 

[Lazybones]

When I first came into 5e after having not played for a decade or so (I skipped 4e entirely), I was confused that the monsters didn't seem to follow the same rules as player characters in terms of how the math behind them worked. In 3e, monster design was codified to the extent that you could easily add PC class levels to them (and were kind of expected to do so, if the published adventurers were any guide). It took me a while to get used to the 5e philosophy, but I kind of see the logic of it now (and I find 5e, with its "simpler" design philosophy, to be much more engaging than 3e). I think that this latest decision is an extension of that trend.

I think ENWorld's user population reflects a philosophy that is a minority perspective in the TTRPG sphere. I have a feeling that most of the folks here are heavily into homebrew, are familiar with multiple RPG systems, and expect to do a lot of customization in their games. Heck, after playing 5e for 6 years I use custom monsters more often than "stock" ones, and I expect I'll be doing the same with 2024. At the higher levels in particular you were almost required to use custom monsters, since competent players could easily breeze through most of what was in the default MM. This is one area that I am glad to see the 2024 rules addressing.

I do agree with most of the posters here and I would have preferred to have had both a) monster building guidelines and b) a table of how to modify NPC stat blocks based on existing PC species in either the DMG or MM. However, I also think it's not an issue for most people who play the game, and frankly I expect that ENWorld and/or the rest of the D&D community will rectify those absences quite swiftly once the MM is out.

 

[GMMichael]

The idea "The only rule is there are no rules" is demonstrable false.

Having over 500 statblocks to re-skin seems more like art to me. With the benefit that you nail WotC's intended CR every single time.

 

[Oofta]

You said you never needed monster creation rules because you just tweaked the monsters yourself. That implies agreement with the notion of not including them. If I misread you I apologize.

I also said I wish I had the rules. Both things can be true. I like ice cream, I don't need ice cream. And ... now that I write this I'm kind of sad there is no ice cream in the house.

On an related note, did we ever have such rules before 5E? Something other than "copy an existing monster and tweak"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you playtest and make changes based on the results of your playtesting, you’re no longer following a formula, which is exactly what I was advocating for…

That is not and never has been my stance. I would much rather they have put monster building guidelines in the book. Someone suggested that there not only be monster building guidelines, but that all monsters in the book be built using them, which I think would have boring results. Playtesting, and making changes to monsters based on the results of that playtesting, is important.

Nope. You playtest before you publish, and once you've published you have released your formula. How could it be otherwise?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I also said I wish I had the rules. Both things can be true. I like ice cream, I don't need ice cream. And ... now that I write this I'm kind of sad there is no ice cream in the house.

On an related note, did we ever have such rules before 5E? Something other than "copy an existing monster and tweak"?

I'm pretty sure 3e had such rules; after all, it was their entire design philosophy. And in any case, there are plenty of non-official D&D-style games out there and I know some of them have them.