D&D General 2024 Monster Creation

[Quickleaf]

That is absolutely not satisfying when you're trying to make a new and unique monster. Not even a little satisfying.

It might work for some dms, but not for those who like to add new stuff to the game that isn't the same as the old stuff.

EDIT: Also, not everyone uses dndbeyond, and the game should not assume everyone does.

Heck, half the time I don't even use stats for a new monster. I just use an old one and add things without the math. Being off a point or two has no effect on the fun.

I've had situations where both of these approaches had their place.
A spitting mimic? I can add acid splash or something to a mimic, done!
A high CR complex undead that inflicts a petrifying disease, then animates petrified victims to fight for it, and can also teleport into your armor (teleporting you out of it) like a heat-seeking missile? OK, yeah, I'm going to need to roll up my sleeves and really get to work!

I do think the DMG (or MM or whatever) must accommodate both methods, and right now we only see accommodating the former. I know someone raised a counterpoint, but my opinion is that not too many pages are necessary to provide a better starting point for more nuanced customization. I don't mean Tome of Foes level options (just get that book!) - just the starting point. I suspect I could do it in 4 pages.

You know, maybe I should post my own method in a separate thread!

 

[dave2008]

That is absolutely not satisfying when you're trying to make a new and unique monster. Not even a little satisfying.

That may not be satisfying for you, but it can be for others. I start most of my monsters by copy and pasting another monster (often one of my own creation) and then find fun ways to tweak to the theme I am going for with the new monster. I find that quite enjoyable! Though I also like making them from scratch too, I have found recently it is more enjoyable to start with an existing statblock as it lets me spend more time on the fun parts.

 

[Clint_L]

A high CR complex undead that inflicts a petrifying disease, then animates petrified victims to fight for it, and can also teleport into your armor (teleporting you out of it) like a heat-seeking missile? OK, yeah, I'm going to need to roll up my sleeves and really get to work!

DDB doesn't require you to use a template, but it is faster if you do. For that mob, I would just start with an undead mob of around the same CR level, so I don't have to re-enter all the standard undead stuff, and then change to abilities to match that. But what you have described is not hard to make on DDB just by modifying an existing mob.

 

[pemerton]

Monsters where the defensive CR is significantly higher, should be used very sparingly and for specific effect.

So, in the 4e encounter building guidelines WotC advised caution in the use of soldiers, especially above-level soldiers, because of the likely grind-y effect on combat.

But that sort of transparency - both at the level of individual monster design ("this monster is a soldier) and at the level of encounter design - was attacked unrelentingly. For years.

So to me it's no surprise that they no longer offer that sort of frank and open discussion of the game as a game. They maintain the fiction that there is no real-world causation, and that the only reality is in-fiction causation.

 

[pemerton]

Seems like you'll want something like 4E. 1 monster per PC of equal level is a standard fight. Since the 4 players vs copies of themselves should, by its nature, be very deadly, a monster of level X would need to be weaker than a PC of level X.

In 4e, at least at heroic tier, a PC of level N is roughly equivalent to an elite creature/NPC of the same level.

So a +4 level encounter (ie 5 elites of the PCs' level) is, at heroic tier, pretty punishing.

At higher tiers, the PCs get more powerful. At elite, a party with plenty of healing surges and daily powers available should be able to take on a +8 level encounter, at least in my experience.

 

[JEB]

Don’t know how DNDBeyond manages their links.

Go here

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/

Scroll down to the DMG part

Select Combat Encounters

Et voila

The monster making guidelines aren't in that part of the free rules, either. I mean, unless I'm missing something. @dave2008 says they're just gone from the free rules.

 

[dave2008]

The monster making guidelines aren't in that part of the free rules, either. I mean, unless I'm missing something. @dave2008 says they're just gone from the free rules.

They are definitely gone from the free rules. There is even an official post about it on DnD Beyond: Corrected Content Error in D&D Free Rules

 

[Minigiant]

I know someone raised a counterpoint, but my opinion is that not too many pages are necessary to provide a better starting point for more nuanced customization. I don't mean Tome of Foes level options (just get that book!) - just the starting point. I suspect I could do it in 4 pages

If WOTC offers a starting point, fans will claim it's not enough and mock it. I can hear the "This chart only makes boring monsters" from the other universe where WOTC did that already.

Financially and Marketing, it's a bad idea.

The best strategy sales wise is to either

1) Provide the entire Monster Creation manual. All 15-40 pages of it.

OR

2) Provide rules to reflavor and encourage purchase of the monsters you are selling

 

[Micah Sweet]

If WOTC offers a starting point, fans will claim it's not enough and mock it. I can hear the "This chart only makes boring monsters" from the other universe where WOTC did that already.

Financially and Marketing, it's a bad idea.

The best strategy sales wise is to either

1) Provide the entire Monster Creation manual. All 15-40 pages of it.

OR

2) Provide rules to reflavor and encourage purchase of the monsters you are selling

My vote is always the one that features more content.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Good news! The Tales of the Valorent Game Master Guide has robust monster creation rules! You can go use that if gor your monster creation needs!