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

[Umbran]

yes.

1) Well, if you insist, then I suspect that there's a lot hiding in the word "flawed". Specifically, that there is something beyond "flawed" that we aren't talking about.

2) This is something we frequently (perhaps generally) fail to publicly recognize when that information would be useful. Our discussions lean to absolutely trashing on flawed things, as if they were in the "beyond flawed" category.

I think we are thus often the architects of our own disappointment.

You actually gain proficiency by using the tools. That's how learning skills works. The idea that you have to be an expert before you can try is nonsense of the highest order. What are they going to break? How are they going to hurt anything? Let them build 1000 terrible monsters. Number 1001 will be brilliant.

Who are "them" in this comment? Because, if it is "players/GMs", no, that's not how customer satisfaction works. If players/GMs use the system once or twice, and it doesn't turn out well, we metaphorically dash it to the floor, stomp on it, and storm away in a huff to shout on the internet about how WotC sucks. We wil not wait for #1001 to ragequit.

And that's not a win for WotC.

 

[Azzy]

Got an idea for what I could have reskinned to create my yuki-on-na? (Post #6)

Pedantry Alert: That should be "yuki-onna" ("onna" is the Japanese word for "woman", the "yuki" means "snow").

 

[Azzy]

That's almost worse. If it exists, why not give it to us?

They said last year that they were going to. Whether that still holds true and in what form, I have no idea.

 

[Remathilis]

They said last year that they were going to. Whether that still holds true and in what form, I have no idea.

Maybe we'll finally get a usable monster creation tool in D&D Beyond. THAT might convince me to pony up!

 

[Hussar]

Prove it.

You can't, because you assume the decisions being made are based on some metric as opposed to just being made because.

Let me ask you this: why does every alt 5E include those rules if "no one used them"?

Because alt-5e products appeal to a comparatively tiny niche (like maybe 5% of WotC DnD’s audience)? And most of those alt-5e rulesets are chasing the same market.

Again not rocket science.

Am I guessing here? Sure. But it’s not much of a leap.

 

[Hussar]

It could also be that D&DBeyond's monster creation system is terrible and unintuitive, and it's easier to create a monster on pen-and-paper, so DM's just don't use it.

If you click on "Create a Monster", you are greeted with 35 boxes to fill out. Sure, I could spend 45 minutes making a monster on D&DBeyond, or I can jot one down on a piece of paper and finish it in 5 minutes.

You can use 20 pages of rules in five minutes? That’s impressive. I certainly couldn’t. Took one look at the rules, bounced off hard, and never looked at them again.

Heck it was only with the 2024 rules that I was even reminded that they existed.

No one reads the DMG is a thing for a reason.

 

[Hussar]

Just to parrot @Umbran for a second, his point about dashing it to the floor rings very true.

If it takes twenty steps to create a monster, those are rules I will never use. It’s just not going to happen ever. Why on earth would I use a system that baroque? I can create entire adventures in less steps. Good grief, random adventure generators have less steps.

Everyone wanted 5e to be less transparent. Well that’s the cost of less transparency. Increased complexity.

 

[Reynard]

1) Well, if you insist, then I suspect that there's a lot hiding in the word "flawed". Specifically, that there is something beyond "flawed" that we aren't talking about.

2) This is something we frequently (perhaps generally) fail to publicly recognize when that information would be useful. Our discussions lean to absolutely trashing on flawed things, as if they were in the "beyond flawed" category.

I think we are thus often the architects of our own disappointment.



Who are "them" in this comment? Because, if it is "players/GMs", no, that's not how customer satisfaction works. If players/GMs use the system once or twice, and it doesn't turn out well, we metaphorically dash it to the floor, stomp on it, and storm away in a huff to shout on the internet about how WotC sucks. We wil not wait for #1001 to ragequit.

And that's not a win for WotC.

If that were true, no one would ever play D&D twice.

 

[Umbran]

If that were true, no one would ever play D&D twice.

A lot don't.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Pedantry Alert: That should be "yuki-onna" ("onna" is the Japanese word for "woman", the "yuki" means "snow").

Yeah, a lot of the terms in the all of the old books (those that weren't just made up to have a term) would be different if they were revised for accuracy. (Longsword?) I have (mostly, though sometimes I end up going down the rabbit-hole anyway) avoided verifying the accuracy of the terms in the books, because it's not really a fun exercise. I decided to just go with it being fantasy, the same way we make up fantasy names for everything else. They don't speak Japanese on Aerth, they speak...some fantasy language, and perhaps that's the correct way to spell it and it translates to "frosty spirit" or such.