D&D (2024) 2025 Monster Manual All You Need to Know video link is up.

[dave2008]

The only way to make sense of that is when building that table, they actually planned to have more hp on every monster. But then after printing those guidelines they noticed that even though the table produced reliable encounters, that those were not fun at all because they were a slog. And then they reduced HP of MM creatures and upped their damage a bit (not enough), but it was too late to change the table.

The table, when the rest of the guidelines are used properly, produces reliable results. However, the table does not produce good results straight up. They already said the 2014 monster creation rules were a flawed attempt to recreate their process which uses several linked spreadsheets. However, printed directions are not a spreadsheet and they should have revised the table to be useful straight up and then change there guidelines as needed to compensate for the differences in approach. That is my basic plan for creating my 2024 monster creation rules.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

While I want to agree with you on principle, I think there are two reasons why they didn't...

1. Monster design is far more art than science and I bet a bunch of the monsters in the book would not adhere to their own guidelines, which was a common complaint regarding the 2014 version. WotC itself admitted they didn't use their own creation rules. Yet the creation rules were often used as the yardstick when people complained about monster design.

2. The rules themselves were based on some odd assumptions and were a pain to use. Creating a new monster was a laborious game of guess and check based on the chart and averaging defensive and offensive CRs with certain variables raising CR and others not. The results were often very bare bones and often required you to finesse the numbers anyway (see 1).

The end result was that building from scratch was not as intuitive as the DMG would make you think. And a strict reading of them could make some very OP creatures "legally" (condition riders on attacks didn't up CR, so you could make a creature that inflicted poisoned, charmed, feared, paralyzed, prone and exhaustion in one hit and it would be the same CR as one who did nothing extra). If the charts were only ever a thumbnail sketch, were they even worth using?

I would have loved WotC to include better rules for monsters, but I think they probably felt the rules weren't useful to new DMs (they require a heavy amount of system mastery to understand) and weren't all that useful to veteran DMs because they often created widely varying results. Maybe they will update them in some future book, but if not the 3pp community has already put out far better systems to do it with.

As an aside, the two biggest uses I had for them was raising and lowering CR for NPCs and existing monsters, both of which the MM including more variety of monsters will help.

The thing is, if you make a monster from scratch with nothing like the 2014 DMG you have absolutely no idea what its CR is.

The guess and check issue with the proficiency bonus you mention (a real irritation) aside, the primary function of the monster building rules was to tell you the CR of the finished product.

Otherwise what are you going to do to determine what the CR of this statblock you made is? Oftentimes imperfect rules really are better than none.

Not including the rules at all, bothers me in a way I haven't found words for. It's like an extreme example of the supported play style contraction that has led to and permeated 5.5e. It's saying you (the DM) don't design monsters in this game. We (the designers) do that for you. Isn't it great and helpful that we made the decision to handle that hard work for you? You can even refluff them if you like! Welcome to the same edition!(just with the parts we currently making the decisions didn't feel mattered, or supported play styles (like that "simulationist" nonsense) we decided we didn't need to anymore).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The table, when the rest of the guidelines are used properly, produces reliable results. However, the table does not produce good results straight up. They already said the 2014 monster creation rules were a flawed attempt to recreate their process which uses several linked spreadsheets. However, printed directions are not a spreadsheet and they should have revised the table to be useful straight up and then change there guidelines as needed to compensate for the differences in approach. That is my basic plan for creating my 2024 monster creation rules.

I very much look forward to your reverse engineered rules.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not including the rules at all, bothers me in a way I haven't found words for.

Have they actually said that there will be no creation/modification guidelines in the book, or are we just assuming so because they didn't say that there are?

I'm honestly curious.

 

[dave2008]

Have they actually said that there will be no creation/modification guidelines in the book, or are we just assuming so because they didn't say that there are?

I'm honestly curious.

A person with a PDF copy provided by WotC said there no monster rules in it. There was a link to the video in one of the threads. FYI, that person called the book a 9/10, so overall good!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A person with a PDF copy provided by WotC said there no monster rules in it. There was a link to the video in one of the threads. FYI, that person called the book a 9/10, so overall good!

Okay, I'd missed that. It doesn't really surprise me that the rules aren't there, but I often feel the need to question assumptions based on "Youtuber leaks". In this case, it's probably legit, though.

More evidence for our "kitbashing book"-theory. Though I can't help but feel like it might be a pipe dream. It seems so obvious, that it also seems like the kind of thing that WotC would never think to actually do.

 

[Remathilis]

. Oftentimes imperfect rules really are better than none.

But imperfect systems can intimidate a DM enough to not want to bother, or to try to make some that doesn't work and become frustrated and quit. In that regard, imperfect rules ARE the same as no rules because the net effect (a DM who cannot make a monster) is the same.

 

[dave2008]

More evidence for our "kitbashing book"-theory. Though I can't help but feel like it might be a pipe dream. It seems so obvious, that it also seems like the kind of thing that WotC would never think to actually do.

Those are basically my thoughts as well.

 

[Weiley31]

I don't know how indepth or what not they are, but the Tales of The Valiant GMG book apparently has monster creation rules, or something.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay, I'd missed that. It doesn't really surprise me that the rules aren't there, but I often feel the need to question assumptions based on "Youtuber leaks". In this case, it's probably legit, though.

More evidence for our "kitbashing book"-theory. Though I can't help but feel like it might be a pipe dream. It seems so obvious, that it also seems like the kind of thing that WotC would never think to actually do.

To be fair, I don't envision an "all kitbashing,, only kitbashing" book...i would expect something like Xanathar's or Tasha's, with a wide spread of niche options, including possibly some of those missing kitbash guidelines (or more developed equivalents).