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

[Azzy]

You don't. You learn how the games works such that you don't need some artificial rating to point to.

So, since XP is specifically tied to CR, what, then, do you suggest?

 

[Lidgar]

The 2024 books seem to employ a lot of page count saving measures, and I think this is probably one of them. They likely figured that the number of DMs who will make use of monster creation rules vs the number who would rather just use stock stat blocks, with maybe a small, non-CR-affecting tweak or two, didn’t justify the page count. Especially since their business model kinda revolves around selling books full of stock stat blocks.

I had the same thought. You get to the "Creating a Creature" section of the DMG and it starts with: Use the approaches and examples in the following sections to build custom creatures for your game.

"Oh boy, let's dig in!"

2 pages on how to modify stat blocks and add traits later...

"Whaaaaa?"

The "approaches" are limited to modifying stat blocks and adding traits. There are no "examples" at all. Yeah, this section saw the chopping block.

 

[Reynard]

So I am looking at the "Creating a Creature" section of the DMG, which is basically a guide to reskinning. Useful in its own way, especially for new GMs, but definitely not what it says on the tin.

But what struck me was the number of things noted as not having any impact on CR -- size, type, senses, damage types, etc. I wonder: if these things have no impact on CR, why do they exist? Outside of fluff, I mean.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, several. That you can point to more doesn't negate those other threads. But, hey, you've convinced me that zero guidance and complete monster guesswork by newbies and experienced DMs alike is a LOT better than having at least some help in place.

Again, the question was, why no monster creation rules? The plausible answer is, no one uses them.

Oh sorry. That’s just pedantry bait.

The plausible answer is not enough people used them to justify ten pages of material in a book that is meant for everyone.

Now, you can dislike that reason. Again I totally get not being happy with not getting something. Totally empathize with that.

But you get the same answer that everyone else gets that wants something- go to 3pp. It’s not in the core rules, and it’s very likely that it will not ever be added. So your choices are to endlessly flog the dead horse or go to a 3pp for what you want.

Same answer every time.

 

[Maxperson]

How would you determine the CR of a creature you made?

Without rules? If I TPK the group with my guesswork, it was a higher CR than them. If they steamroll the monster due to my guesswork, it was lower CR than them. If I got lucky and it wasn't steamrolled and didn't TPK the party, it was their CR.

 

[Hussar]

Without rules? If I TPK the group with my guesswork, it was a higher CR than them. If they steamroll the monster due to my guesswork, it was lower CR than them. If I got lucky and it wasn't steamrolled and didn't TPK the party, it was their CR.

See, this is why monster creation rules don't work. People don't even understand the basic functions of CR. A par CR encounter is meant to be steamrolled by a party. It's not supposed to be anywhere near lethal and should only use a pretty small slice of daily resources.

But, sure, WotC can make monster creation rules that would be satisfactory for people who have wildly differing interpretations of basic game assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

See, this is why monster creation rules don't work. People don't even understand the basic functions of CR. A par CR encounter is meant to be steamrolled by a party. It's not supposed to be anywhere near lethal and should only use a pretty small slice of daily resources.

This is a major flaw with 5e for a lot of us. We'd rather not have to throw 5-8 encounters at a party in a day in order to challenge the group.

So for me, par is a challenging encounter that doesn't TPK the group. That's hard enough with their stock monsters, let alone trying to just wing it and maybe overcharge the monster with some new ability.

But, sure, WotC can make monster creation rules that would be satisfactory for people who have wildly differing interpretations of basic game assumptions.

Yep. The rules would be a baseline from which to raise or lower the fight challenge allowing all those wildly differing interpretations to create monsters without being in the dark about it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

You don't. You learn how the games works such that you don't need some artificial rating to point to.

You know what your players and their characters can do. You in theory have been making encounters for them for weeks / months / years over all manner of campaigns. Just make a monster that falls into the same ranges and power as other monsters you throw at them at the level you wish the monster to be.

I can go into the Monster Manual right now... see the stats of a Hill Giant... and make a completely new monster whose stats are like the Hill Giant. Just change some numbers around, add in a couple "special powers", and then have my players fight it. Maybe it turns out to be an easy fight, maybe it turns out to be a difficult fight. But so what? Isn't that the point? Not all encounters are the same. So who cares what kind of "rating" it may or may not have? The PCs are fighting a monster, not a Challenge Rating.

A monster's proficiency bonus is derived from their CR. How should one deal with that?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So I am looking at the "Creating a Creature" section of the DMG, which is basically a guide to reskinning. Useful in its own way, especially for new GMs, but definitely not what it says on the tin.

But what struck me was the number of things noted as not having any impact on CR -- size, type, senses, damage types, etc. I wonder: if these things have no impact on CR, why do they exist? Outside of fluff, I mean.

One of the things rather ill-explained in the 2014 rules is that CR is mostly made up of two numbers: HP, and DPR.

AC and attack bonus/DC can modify this (a creature harder to hit has more longevity; a creature who hits better will drain the characters quicker), but those two numbers mostly set CR.

Every trait that impacts CR in the 2014 rules are traits that affect how long the creature survives, or how long the PC's survive.

Size, type, sense, damage types....none of these things impact CR, because they don't directly affect the survivability (damage to hp ratio) of either side.

This is wonderful, because it means that you can do a lot of things to a monster that are mostly flavor. Yeah, the reason two different creatures of the same CR might have different sizes is mostly because it fits the story.

This is a major flaw with 5e for a lot of us. We'd rather not have to throw 5-8 encounters at a party in a day in order to challenge the group.

Comments like this are why I'm sympathetic to the position that the monster creation section was just asking to be misunderstood, and might be "more effort than its worth" to get right.

Like, this was never truly the case in 5e, but its persistence is understandable. CR is just asking to be misunderstood by people who have an expectation that it wasn't designed to meet.

 

[Maxperson]

One of the things rather ill-explained in the 2014 rules is that CR is mostly made up of two numbers: HP, and DPR.

AC and attack bonus/DC can modify this (a creature harder to hit has more longevity; a creature who hits better will drain the characters quicker), but those two numbers mostly set CR.

Every trait that impacts CR in the 2014 rules are traits that affect how long the creature survives, or how long the PC's survive.

Size, type, sense, damage types....none of these things impact CR, because they don't directly affect the survivability (damage to hp ratio) of either side.

This is wonderful, because it means that you can do a lot of things to a monster that are mostly flavor. Yeah, the reason two different creatures of the same CR might have different sizes is mostly because it fits the story.



Comments like this are why I'm sympathetic to the position that the monster creation section was just asking to be misunderstood, and might be "more effort than its worth" to get right.

Like, this was never truly the case in 5e, but its persistence is understandable. CR is just asking to be misunderstood by people who have an expectation that it wasn't designed to meet.

CR has never worked. BUT, it did ballpark things and the rules did make it easier to tweak monsters to our preferences without wiping the party. No rules and new monster balance = shooting pretty blindly.