D&D 5E (2024) Have You Pre-Ordered The 2024 MM?

[DEFCON 1]

I never pre-order anything. If I want something, I'll pick it up when it comes out.

Better that than to pre-order something, finally get it, then come on here to EN World complaining that the products sucks. Well, why the hell did you buy it sight-unseen then?

 

[Bae'zel]

Yep, from my favorite local shop. Special cover (that Mind Flayer looks awesome). Same place I pre-ordered the other two books (PH and DMG).

I know that the book won't be flawless, but I have plenty of 3rd party material (eg the Monster Overhawl) to fill in any gaps I find.

Edit: the lack of monster-building rules doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm more of a "reskin and adjust" type of guy. The Bear statblock has been used for so many things in my campaigns LOL

 

[Quickleaf]

What do you mean by this? I am truly curious as generally respect your thoughtful approach to design, but I am not sure I agree with you here.

1. I think some things could be streamlined, but I would hardly call it a "desperate need."
2. I think some streamlining needs to be removed. I want important spells written out, not just a list. I want individual attacks that do unique things, not just "rends," etc.

Hey Dave! Likewise, I always am interested in your approach and respect the effort you put into your own monster making process. I have a lot to learn from you!

It might be easier if we talk about a specific monster…if that’s not derailing this thread…Because the overall argument I have can be distilled at a high level to “universal assumptions about monster design in 5e often fail by misunderstanding the important essence of the specific monster they are trying to capture.”

IOW they lose the diamond in the copy+paste details and layout.

But I mostly agree that short form text of a spell & interesting attacks are desirable. For me it’s a question of HOW and WHY and TO WHAT EFFECT, not a question of whether those two design principles are “good.” I think they are embodying good design thinking, but that gets back to my comment about pitfalls of universally saying “any monster with three Rend attacks is failing to be great design.” There’s a whole lot of context that matters there. For instance if the monster has an aura triggering an interesting effect anytime a foe in the aura takes damage? That works. Or if the monster is designed really as a potential ally to the PCs (or a tragic mistake to fight where the juice isn’t in tactics but in emotions). That also works.

 

[dave2008]

Hey Dave! Likewise, I always am interested in your approach and respect the effort you put into your own monster making process. I have a lot to learn from you!

It might be easier if we talk about a specific monster…if that’s not derailing this thread…Because the overall argument I have can be distilled at a high level to “universal assumptions about monster design in 5e often fail by misunderstanding the important essence of the specific monster they are trying to capture.”

IOW they lose the diamond in the copy+paste details and layout.

But I mostly agree that short form text of a spell & interesting attacks are desirable. For me it’s a question of HOW and WHY and TO WHAT EFFECT, not a question of whether those two design principles are “good.” I think they are embodying good design thinking, but that gets back to my comment about pitfalls of universally saying “any monster with three Rend attacks is failing to be great design.” There’s a whole lot of context that matters there. For instance if the monster has an aura triggering an interesting effect anytime a foe in the aura takes damage? That works. Or if the monster is designed really as a potential ally to the PCs (or a tragic mistake to fight where the juice isn’t in tactics but in emotions). That also works.

That all makes sense to me and follows my thoughts as well. I guess I still don't understand what you mean by "desperate need" for streamlining. What do you believe needs to be streamlined. That statement doesn't seem to come from your comments above or to be a case by case thing. But maybe I am not quite understanding something yet.

 

[Quickleaf]

That all makes sense to me and follows my thoughts as well. I guess I still don't understand what you mean by "desperate need" for streamlining. What do you believe needs to be streamlined. That statement doesn't seem to come from your comments above or to be a case by case thing. But maybe I am not quite understanding something yet.

Sure, so I've had problems with 3 "categories" of overwritten monsters.

(1) There are monsters that have "too much writing devoted to one ability"; my most recent example (from the last live 5e game I ran, since then it's just been PbP Rime of the Frostmaiden) is the intellect devourer's Body Thief.

(2) Then there are monsters that have the "too many powers leading to analysis paralysis" problem; Acererak from my Tomb of Annihilation campaign was the most complex example of this problem that I encountered in 5e.

NOTE: That was a BBEG, so yeah I get it, but that wasn't the only time I had that issue. Many legendary monsters & spellcasters had this issue. More broadly speaking, when I ended up needing to re-read stat blocks or learn strategies about how to use a monster from Keith Ammon's The Monsters Know What They're Doing blog, that was – for me, personally – a sign that the essence of the monster was getting lost / the design wasn't clear about how it was supposed to be used.

(3) The 3rd category are the "trying to say too much and not using layout well" monsters. My primary example was running a vampire. Holy crap that was a messy stat block to make sense of. Not only does it try to cram too much in, and several of the abilities are overwritten, but there is so much clutter.

How to slim it down becomes a matter of priorities – e.g. most 5e players would prioritize its combat abilities and probably say "most of the Vampire Weaknesses could probably just be in the flavor text", whereas I'd prefer to see more cut from the combat part of the monster. But it would probably be a universal improvement for Spider Climb to be moved to the Speed line of the stat block.

Whichever way you bite it, my experience was it was hard to find what I needed to quickly run the vampire looking at its stat block for the first time – I needed to really read through it in advance to digest it. And for my personal GMing style, that just wasn't part of my priority / interest / time budget. In the case of Acererak? Yeah, I did extensive homework, probably more than I would have preferred to do, and it paid off. But that's the exception to my rule. I really don't want to be spending time parsing a stat block during game prep (and only minimally during play).

 

[dave2008]

Sure, so I've had problems with 3 "categories" of overwritten monsters.

(1) There are monsters that have "too much writing devoted to one ability"; my most recent example (from the last live 5e game I ran, since then it's just been PbP Rime of the Frostmaiden) is the intellect devourer's Body Thief.

(2) Then there are monsters that have the "too many powers leading to analysis paralysis" problem; Acererak from my Tomb of Annihilation campaign was the most complex example of this problem that I encountered in 5e.

NOTE: That was a BBEG, so yeah I get it, but that wasn't the only time I had that issue. Many legendary monsters & spellcasters had this issue. More broadly speaking, when I ended up needing to re-read stat blocks or learn strategies about how to use a monster from Keith Ammon's The Monsters Know What They're Doing blog, that was – for me, personally – a sign that the essence of the monster was getting lost / the design wasn't clear about how it was supposed to be used.

(3) The 3rd category are the "trying to say too much and not using layout well" monsters. My primary example was running a vampire. Holy crap that was a messy stat block to make sense of. Not only does it try to cram too much in, and several of the abilities are overwritten, but there is so much clutter.

How to slim it down becomes a matter of priorities – e.g. most 5e players would prioritize its combat abilities and probably say "most of the Vampire Weaknesses could probably just be in the flavor text", whereas I'd prefer to see more cut from the combat part of the monster. But it would probably be a universal improvement for Spider Climb to be moved to the Speed line of the stat block.

Whichever way you bite it, my experience was it was hard to find what I needed to quickly run the vampire looking at its stat block for the first time – I needed to really read through it in advance to digest it. And for my personal GMing style, that just wasn't part of my priority / interest / time budget. In the case of Acererak? Yeah, I did extensive homework, probably more than I would have preferred to do, and it paid off. But that's the exception to my rule. I really don't want to be spending time parsing a stat block during game prep (and only minimally during play).

OK, that was completely not where I thought you were going. When I heard "streamlined" I immediately thought of the stat block format. Where as what you are talking about it more the writing style IMO. I generally agree with your thoughts again, but here is some more specific feedback:

(1) Agree on this, though luckily it is not common. I created "swallowed," "dazed," and "dominated" conditions to try and address this somewhat. Curious, what do you think about the gold dragon's change to Shapechange? Instead of writing it all out they list the spell and then note how it is different from the spell. Takes up less space (aka more streamlined), but it requires you to know the spell Shapechange (not as DM friendly IMO). I am not sure what to think about it personally. I think it works for things that are not in combat, but I wouldn't want it for a combat/encounter ability / spell.

Also, I was recently thinking of making "throw" a standard action like push or charge. So you have the rules for throwing another creature as part of the game and then you don't need to make it a specific, lengthy action in a stat block.

Finally, how would you handle unique abilities that just need some explaining? Is your approach that if it can't be explained clearly in a sentence the trait or action should just be removed? This is making me think I need to go back and look at some 4e monsters again, they were good at making the actions fairly simple and clear.

(2) This is a difficult one for me and a lot of DMs have different desires on this front. I generally believe lower CR and creatures you expect to fight in groups should be simple and have has few traits and actions as needed to make them effective for their intended theme / role. However, I also think the answer to that is somewhat subjective.

However, I really struggle with this on BBEG's and in particular higher CR ones. Those battles should last longer and the monster needs more options IMO. I also have a tendency to design a monster around what it should be able to do and not what is efficient in game play. When I design a monster it is a living, breathing thing in my mind and I have a hard time limiting it just to make it easier to play. So I understand your concern, but I don't know if I have the will to fully embrace that approach yet.

(3) I agree the vampire is a mess. I have tried to slim it down and keep some of the intended flavor, but I usually end up filling it back up (with maneuvers or spellcasting) so it is just as long. I did remove the weakness though, as I don't think they need to be in a stat block.

However, I will push back a bit on your approach to boss monsters. I think spending time with them and understanding them is essential. I wouldn't want to design boss monsters (in general) with the requirement that they are able to be understood and run well at a glance. I think there are exceptions of course, but I wouldn't want to make that the copy/paste standard.

 

[Quickleaf]

OK, that was completely not where I thought you were going. When I heard "streamlined" I immediately thought of the stat block format. Where as what you are talking about it more the writing style IMO.

I also have objections to the layout/format of the stat blocks, but I've already posted extensively on that with before/after examples of my preferences: D&D 5E - Radically shrinking stat blocks I didn't want to weigh down the thread by duplicating my opinions, but I'm there on record if it's of interest!

"too much writing devoted to one ability"

(1) Agree on this, though luckily it is not common. I created "swallowed," "dazed," and "dominated" conditions to try and address this somewhat. Curious, what do you think about the gold dragon's change to Shapechange? Instead of writing it all out they list the spell and then note how it is different from the spell. Takes up less space (aka more streamlined), but it requires you to know the spell Shapechange (not as DM friendly IMO). I am not sure what to think about it personally. I think it works for things that are not in combat, but I wouldn't want it for a combat/encounter ability / spell.

I haven't seen the new gold dragon's Shapechange ability - the post here only shows part of the new stats - but I think referencing spells in monster stat blocks should be very carefully/judiciously done due to the added burden of looking up spells. There are "knock-on" effects of "it's like spell X, but Z" which I'm not sure yet how much 2024's books take into account – things like a gold dragon's Shapechange (like shapechange but Z) potentially being affected by dispel magic, antimagic/dead magic zones, and the like.

Also, I was recently thinking of making "throw" a standard action like push or charge. So you have the rules for throwing another creature as part of the game and then you don't need to make it a specific, lengthy action in a stat block.

Finally, how would you handle unique abilities that just need some explaining? Is your approach that if it can't be explained clearly in a sentence the trait or action should just be removed? This is making me think I need to go back and look at some 4e monsters again, they were good at making the actions fairly simple and clear.

I've written a couple very complicated monsters. With those "wordy" abilities, it's a matter of iterating design, going back and forth between "can I cut the words down to make this clearer and shorter" vs. "can I sacrifice some of what I'm trying to do to make it shorter while preserving its essence." Several times my solution was designing synergistic monster features that, when working together in play, would yield the outcome I wanted.

"too many powers leading to analysis paralysis"

(2) This is a difficult one for me and a lot of DMs have different desires on this front. I generally believe lower CR and creatures you expect to fight in groups should be simple and have has few traits and actions as needed to make them effective for their intended theme / role. However, I also think the answer to that is somewhat subjective.

However, I really struggle with this on BBEG's and in particular higher CR ones. Those battles should last longer and the monster needs more options IMO. I also have a tendency to design a monster around what it should be able to do and not what is efficient in game play. When I design a monster it is a living, breathing thing in my mind and I have a hard time limiting it just to make it easier to play. So I understand your concern, but I don't know if I have the will to fully embrace that approach yet.

My problem with D&D is that when we say BBEG there's a host of assumptions about what the climactic conflict should look like – the game system trains us for what to expect, and so we discuss things like combat length, keeping it fresh, engaging all the players, avoiding stun-locking, etc, etc. It's the questions we don't ask that have become of greater interest to me. Monster design is not the only contributing factor, but it's a very significant one.

D&D from very early on has had an obsession with codifying every dang creature it could, and using the same stat block for each of them. If you noticed something in 5th edition, green slime became a hazard mentioned in the DMG rather than a monster – no one talked much about that move, but it was a huge paradigm shift. When I look at a gold dragon or unicorn written up the same way as a red dragon or nightmare, it makes me wonder what the design intent is, how the designer anticipates the creature being used. If the priority isn't on it being an involved fight, maybe it doesn't need to be written up as something to fight. A great example: Horse statblock. It has a hoof attack. Great. Now tell me what its overland pace is and how much it can carry, because IME 9 times out of 10 that information for a horse is far more necessary at the table than its hoof attack.

Paradigm shifts like that aren't for everybody. D&D isn't for everybody. I'm just trying to point out an example of such a shift that occurred in the current edition to establish that... I'm not crazy? Hah. That there is a way it can be done without feeling like the game we know and love is being torn asunder.

"trying to say too much and not using layout well"

(3) I agree the vampire is a mess. I have tried to slim it down and keep some of the intended flavor, but I usually end up filling it back up (with maneuvers or spellcasting) so it is just as long. I did remove the weakness though, as I don't think they need to be in a stat block.

However, I will push back a bit on your approach to boss monsters. I think spending time with them and understanding them is essential. I wouldn't want to design boss monsters (in general) with the requirement that they are able to be understood and run well at a glance. I think there are exceptions of course, but I wouldn't want to make that the copy/paste standard.

It really depends on what you intend to emulate with a "boss monster." What I usually hear when that term is brought up in D&D is a collection of specific expectations about how that combat will play out (e.g. sense of suspense or catharsis going into the combat, not over too fast, a mix of good power gaming / lucky rolls / quick thinking necessary to avoid casualties or disaster).

That's not the only "boss monster" experience, however.

For example, juggernaut-style monsters which are nearly impervious until they're lured into a trap whereupon they can be readily defeated, but up until that point it's a chase to stay alive. In the film Brotherhood of the Wolf there's a climactic encounter with the monster where they have to trap it in a cage.

Another example, "inside your head" monsters like the Purple Man from Jessica Jones who act through a charmed / possessed surrogate, where the catharsis is about how the surrogate fights to shake of the charm, and their friends have to face them without killing them.

Rather, there are dozens of "boss monster" experiences that... in my opinion... D&D doesn't do a great job of facilitating... which is in part because of the obsessive statting of monsters in the same manner. IME that leads to a cognitive pigeon-holing both for the GM and for the players who learn to game the system (which any clever player wanting to win is going to do) which results in a certain set of tactics getting repeated, and then that sense of freshness and wonder and creativity suffers.

A quick thought experiment: Imagine a monster without hit points. What becomes the determining factor in how long that confrontation lasts? The point is that a lot of a GM's (legitimate) concerns about "will this boss monster last long enough to keep the players engaged for a suitable period of play time so it feels satisfying and offers an emotional payoff?" ...that concern requires the monster to have hit points in order to exist. Remove the hit points, and the root of the question is revealed – It's not fundamentally a question about numbers. It's a question about emotion and perception. The numbers are just the medium we end up using.

I'm not saying throw out Hit Points, but I do recommend at least once in a GM's career running a monster without any stats, just the creative grist you bring to the table, and let yourself discover the monster along with the players. Why is that useful? Because it puts the GM in intimate contact with the emotional dimension of roleplaying. If I'm not focused on the stat block, where does that portion of my focus go? When I did this exercise for myself – it was running a "striga" mystery in 4e – I found that portion of my focus went directly to the emotional experience of my players and cultivating the brooding mystery/horror atmosphere I wanted. Up until that point I'd failed at the #1 most important thing I wanted for this adventure, which was to make it legitimately scary. However, I'd really felt like I hadn't captured the players' hearts and minds UNTIL I did this experiment, and that session everyone was sharing how they were on the edge of their seats, they were dreading facing the "striga", and they kept talking about how creepy the session was.

There was an important lesson I needed to learn there, and I hope I'm articulating clearly.

 

[Divine2021]

I won’t be buying it, I’ll just use what Kobold Press puts out. There’s a quality with Kobold that I can depend upon.

 

[dave2008]

I won’t be buying it, I’ll just use what Kobold Press puts out. There’s a quality with Kobold that I can depend upon.

IDK, I was really disappointed with their dragons.

 

[dave2008]

I also have objections to the layout/format of the stat blocks, but I've already posted extensively on that with before/after examples of my preferences: D&D 5E - Radically shrinking stat blocks I didn't want to weigh down the thread by duplicating my opinions, but I'm there on record if it's of interest!

I remember that thread, but I don't remember the specifics. I was already doing some of the things you suggest (like CR at the top). I will have to go back and take a look and see if there is anything I want to use. Thank you for sharing!

"too much writing devoted to one ability"

I haven't seen the new gold dragon's Shapechange ability - the post here only shows part of the new stats - but I think referencing spells in monster stat blocks should be very carefully/judiciously done due to the added burden of looking up spells. There are "knock-on" effects of "it's like spell X, but Z" which I'm not sure yet how much 2024's books take into account – things like a gold dragon's Shapechange (like shapechange but Z) potentially being affected by dispel magic, antimagic/dead magic zones, and the like.

They posted the whole stat block on beyond. You can see it here: Preview the New Stat Block Design

Here is how the are handling shapechange:

At Will: Detect Magic, Guiding Bolt (level 4 version), Shapechange (Beast or Humanoid form only, no Tmeporary Hit Points gained from the spell, and no Concentration or Temporary Hit Points required to maintain the spell)

"too many powers leading to analysis paralysis"

Paradigm shifts like that aren't for everybody. D&D isn't for everybody. I'm just trying to point out an example of such a shift that occurred in the current edition to establish that... I'm not crazy? Hah. That there is a way it can be done without feeling like the game we know and love is being torn asunder.

I guess I don't understand how this discussion of paradigm shifts relates to analysis paralysis. They seem to be separate issues to me. I generally like a somewhat standardized format, but I am not against the change to green slime. However, maintaining a consistent format doesn't mean you can't include useful information (carrying capacity, over land travel, etc.). I think what I would like more people to embrace is the idea that monster is not just a stat block. For me, the monster entry and stat block work together (ideally). I will say the 2024 MM seems to be using more that way (like A5e and others have too).

It always bothered me in 4e when people would say a monster couldn't do something because it wasn't in the stat block. The stat block is just a snapshot of what a monster can do - not everything thing it can do!

"trying to say too much and not using layout well"

It really depends on what you intend to emulate with a "boss monster." What I usually hear when that term is brought up in D&D is a collection of specific expectations about how that combat will play out (e.g. sense of suspense or catharsis going into the combat, not over too fast, a mix of good power gaming / lucky rolls / quick thinking necessary to avoid casualties or disaster).

That's not the only "boss monster" experience, however.

For example, juggernaut-style monsters which are nearly impervious until they're lured into a trap whereupon they can be readily defeated, but up until that point it's a chase to stay alive. In the film Brotherhood of the Wolf there's a climactic encounter with the monster where they have to trap it in a cage.

Another example, "inside your head" monsters like the Purple Man from Jessica Jones who act through a charmed / possessed surrogate, where the catharsis is about how the surrogate fights to shake of the charm, and their friends have to face them without killing them.

Rather, there are dozens of "boss monster" experiences that... in my opinion... D&D doesn't do a great job of facilitating... which is in part because of the obsessive statting of monsters in the same manner.

Love the Brotherhood of the Wolf and Jessica Jones references!

I guess I don't see these as mutually exclusive. I don't have an issue with running either of your example scenarios with D&D style monster stat blocks.

IME that leads to a cognitive pigeon-holing both for the GM and for the players who learn to game the system (which any clever player wanting to win is going to do) which results in a certain set of tactics getting repeated, and then that sense of freshness and wonder and creativity suffers.

A quick thought experiment: Imagine a monster without hit points. What becomes the determining factor in how long that confrontation lasts? The point is that a lot of a GM's (legitimate) concerns about "will this boss monster last long enough to keep the players engaged for a suitable period of play time so it feels satisfying and offers an emotional payoff?" ...that concern requires the monster to have hit points in order to exist. Remove the hit points, and the root of the question is revealed – It's not fundamentally a question about numbers. It's a question about emotion and perception. The numbers are just the medium we end up using.

I'm not saying throw out Hit Points, but I do recommend at least once in a GM's career running a monster without any stats, just the creative grist you bring to the table, and let yourself discover the monster along with the players. Why is that useful? Because it puts the GM in intimate contact with the emotional dimension of roleplaying. If I'm not focused on the stat block, where does that portion of my focus go? When I did this exercise for myself – it was running a "striga" mystery in 4e – I found that portion of my focus went directly to the emotional experience of my players and cultivating the brooding mystery/horror atmosphere I wanted. Up until that point I'd failed at the #1 most important thing I wanted for this adventure, which was to make it legitimately scary. However, I'd really felt like I hadn't captured the players' hearts and minds UNTIL I did this experiment, and that session everyone was sharing how they were on the edge of their seats, they were dreading facing the "striga", and they kept talking about how creepy the session was.

There was an important lesson I needed to learn there, and I hope I'm articulating clearly.

I am able to and have run monsters without a stat block. I just us the improv tools from the DMG. In fact I do it quit a lot.

However, that is not how I like to design a monster. As I mentioned before I don't like to / am somewhat uncomfortable designing monsters for a game. I like that a stat block / monster entry is a tool to express a creature in a fictional world. I enjoy that, probably more than anything else in D&D, and it is more important than making it easy to DM. I can DM / run a monster anyway I want regardless of the stat block. However, I want the stat block to tell a story of the world. For me, monster design exists beyond its use at the table. I am not saying that is good, or what an RPG company should do. I am just saying that is what I like to do, what I want when I design a monster.

Really just trying to explain that while a understand your broad approach to the function of monsters / monster stat blocks, it is not something I am ever likely to embrace. Some giant monsters are probably easier to run as a "dungeon," but that is just not a monster design that interests me.