D&D General 2024 Monster Creation

[dave2008]

I've seen this mentioned a couple times. As I understand it, this is from some interview or online video, right?

If it's not in the books, you can't expect people to know this. I certainly didn't, and hadn't heard of it for the vast majority of the time 5e is out. "We told you in a video on youtube" is a terrible way to disseminate rules for a game that is played (at least by many) with actual physical books. If that video isn't directly linked to by the online rules, it's a terrible way to disseminate the rules for player who use the electronic tools, too.

I didn't intend to imply it was a good way to get information out. However, before they let that info slip that is what I had been doing anyway so it seemed intuitive to me. Also, i am pretty sure I said in my comment that this is information I am hoping they add to updated monster creation guidelines.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The D&D designers make monsters, a lot of them. If they can't give fans guidelines for creating new monsters, then something is off. Just tell fans how they do it.

Yes. It's part of a pattern I've noticed that I do not understand.

WotC has specific internal design principles that they use, and they almost never tell us what they are.

Some of these have been mentioned during the playtest. One of the early UAs told about "ribbons" in a sidebar, which was a revelation to many of us and now is just an understood thing in the fan base. Very occasionally a designer mentions some other similar principles. And sometimes those of us with lots of time for it can reverse engineer what appear to be (occasionally pretty precise) design principles.

But, in general, they don't tell us these things.

This is baffling to me in today's society and RPG environment. Is someone in upper management directing them not to share "trade secrets" for fear it will reduce their bottom line if fans know how to create content just like the official team, or what?

I mean, we have content from plenty of other places showing how you can do this in RPGs, and third-party creators providing alternates for official 5e D&D that work fine. But WotC can't just tell us what rules they are using for design so we can be better informed in our own work? This would literally make them more money, and most people here understand why so I'm not going to go into it. This is the 2020s, not the 1950s. It's ridiculous not to have more transparency here.

 

[dave2008]

If that's what it takes, fine. Monster creation is one of the major aspects of DMing. It should be covered in enough detail for a novice dm to make a monster that holds up to scrutiny.

When did that become a thing though. Neither 1e or 2e considered it a major aspect of DMing. Was it 3e that started it? I skipped that edition. I know 4e had good monster design guidelines (and I used them a lot), but I still prefer 5e's monster design guidelines.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Maybe the assumption can be, one monster per character, but then a "solo" counts as four separate characters (with four times the attacks, etcetera).

That can work well for people that do party-balanced battles, but it only works for that. I'm old school where I put together an encounter that makes sense in the world, and then sometimes would like to be able to look at the math and see about how hard it happens to be on some objective scale. So starting with the party and figuring out how to make a "standard" challenge for them is of little use to me. I just like to be able to compare and see where on the threat scale something falls.

(Fortunately I have enough experience that I rarely have a problem doing this intuitively, but I do get value out of checking the math.)

 

[dave2008]

The D&D designers make monsters, a lot of them. If they can't give fans guidelines for creating new monsters, then something is off. Just tell fans how they do it.

13th Age has an excellent monster creation system because the book gives us procedures the designers used themselves.

They did give us guidelines in the 2014 DMG. We know it didn't 100% match their spreadsheet, but it works pretty darn well IME. And those guidelines still work for 2024, mostly. Can those guidelines be improved, yes. Can those guidelines be updated to 2024, yes. Will they be improved and updated? I definitely believe they will be updated, but I am not 100% sure they will be improved - I quite like the 2014 DMG guidelines (thought they could be more complete - I have filled in those blanks long ago).

 

[dave2008]

That can work well for people that do party-balanced battles, but it only works for that. I'm old school where I put together an encounter that makes sense in the world, and then sometimes would like to be able to look at the math and see about how hard it happens to be on some objective scale. So starting with the party and figuring out how to make a "standard" challenge for them is of little use to me. I just like to be able to compare and see where on the threat scale something falls.

(Fortunately I have enough experience that I rarely have a problem doing this intuitively, but I do get value out of checking the math.)

I also don't do party-balanced battles. In the monster by level system I am working on it is pretty simply to figure out. Add all the monster levels in a fight, subtract all the part levels from that. If the result is positive, there is a good chance the monsters win. If it is negative there is a good chance the PCs win. The further negative or positive the more certain the result on way or the other.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes, exactly. Everything is ultimately spells. Spells are HOW the game gets balanced, especially at higher levels.

This is why it is so important not to muck about the spell lists, and to make sure every spell is about as powerful as the other spells in the same slot, and generally precision consistency.

Speaking strictly mechanically, that’s my least favorite thing about Hasbro DND. I think it’s at the core of their long-standing attempt to take the magic the gathering business model as a pseudo template for the direction of DND.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've seen this mentioned a couple times. As I understand it, this is from some interview or online video, right?

If it's not in the books, you can't expect people to know this. I certainly didn't, and hadn't heard of it for the vast majority of the time 5e is out. "We told you in a video on youtube" is a terrible way to disseminate rules for a game that is played (at least by many) with actual physical books. If that video isn't directly linked to by the online rules, it's a terrible way to disseminate the rules for player who use the electronic tools, too.

I completely agree with your evaluation. It’s almost hostile design to homebrewing, if I were to wear my conspiracy hat.

Anyhow, I linked a video earlier with the time stamp 3:45 and the original source of that tidbit from Jeremy:

 

[Yaarel]

Speaking strictly mechanically, that’s my least favorite thing about Hasbro DND. I think it’s at the core of their long-standing attempt to take the magic the gathering business model as a pseudo template for the direction of DND.

Spells are a format. Once the high level features are well understood and comparable to other high level features − which is what spell lists inherently do − one can reformat the mechanics in a nonspell format.

 

[Azzy]

I could be misremembering, but I do recall at some point when WotC was discussing the 2024 core books they mentioned that the DMG guidelines was not 100% accurate to their internal calculator and they planned to have an updated calculator in the new books. That, in conjunction with their repeated statements that they see all 3 books as an integrated whole, make me think monster creation rules will be in the 2025 MM.

I distinctly remember this and that they were looking to put a CR calculator online.