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

[Minigiant]

Like I said in a previous thread.

Despite many people saying you don't like it most people like their monsters to be put into 4e roles.

Some monsters are dumb attack brutes.
Some monsters are long range snipers.
Some monsters are fancy elites.
Some monsters are solos with elaborate combat schemes.
Some monsters are non-combat tricksters with effect based control.
Some monsters are low maintenance minions

Because five is math was not built on a very stable easily managed math model, It would take 15 to 20 pages including artwork in order to fit in a monster creation system of the quality that the D&D fan base would desire.

Grayhawk, Bastions, and Planar stuff ate that additional page count.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find it interesting that nobody has started threads on how the DMG removed the race/species design information from the DMG. Or how there is no guidance in either 2014 or 2024 on how to create a feat. The spells and magic items sections are verbatim (and barely much use). Yet its the monster rules (and their sprawling mass of tables) that get missed.

Here's quick hint: the DMG in 2014 wasn't very good for giving ANY creation guidelines. You cannot view the advice it gave for creating a class or subclass as anything less than "FAFO". Only the monster rules, with its 20-step process and multiple charts, looks anywhere close to actual rules, and that is incredibly deceiving since much of the monster rules come down to "write down some numbers, see if they match the expected CR, and if they don't write down different numbers and repeat".

Honestly, I think the biggest tell is that WotC is admitting the rules weren't really doing what they were supposed to and opted quietly remove them (along with the useless rules for creating races or classes). That kind of creation is advanced and requires some knowledge of game design.

You know who's supposed to have some knowledge of game design? The game designers at WotC. You'd think they have the know-how you put together some rules in the books for their game, especially after 10 years of iteration.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

I'm not sure why this is such a huge deal. The editions released in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's didn't have any formulas and yet plenty of new monsters appeared in official, 3rd party, and fan material. Same with spells, magic items, classes, etc.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure why this is such a huge deal. The editions released in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's didn't have any formulas and yet plenty of new monsters appeared in official, 3rd party, and fan material. Same with spells, magic items, classes, etc.

It has been typical for D&D for 25 years. it is a useful tool to have.

I really, really hate it when people decide "they did/didn't do it in 1984" is a good reason to make decisions now. No one cares about what they did in 1984.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure why this is such a huge deal. The editions released in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's didn't have any formulas and yet plenty of new monsters appeared in official, 3rd party, and fan material. Same with spells, magic items, classes, etc.

Because pre2000s TTRPGs didn't care much about design for a goal.

This hit a head, not where DMs want a monster design system partilly to offshoot the work in designing for a game designed for both feels and reality.

You can't just say a giant has 100 HP, 13 ac, and deals 2d10 damage anymore. Because if you pick the wrong numbers, it won't match expectations.

Expectations is Everything now.

That's why WOTC wont publish their system.

 

[Charlaquin]

that it's going to be necessary to deviate from the formula at times isn't a good enough reason to not include the formula at all IMO, yes it's not going to be perfect in every situation but it at least gives people a baseline to work off of rather than guessing blindly from zero.

Again, I am not saying the formula shouldn’t be included. I have never done so, and will never do so, because I don’t believe it. I believe the formula should have been included, and I have said so multiple times now.

 

[Charlaquin]

The fact that no system will be perfect does not obviate the need for the system.

I AM NOT SAYING OTHERWISE

 

[Charlaquin]

I think a better question would be why not have a monster creation system (which you can include in the monster or DM book) and actually use that system to create all the monsters in your monster book?

THIS is the post I was responding to, and the bolded part is what I was saying there’s good reason not to do.

 

[GMMichael]

Reskinning is a far cry from making your own monsters.

Truth, but 1) I'm impressed if one of the 500+ monsters isn't at least similar to your idea, and 2) since there are so many reskinning options, making your monster from scratch is very likely reinventing the wheel, anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It has been typical for D&D for 25 years. it is a useful tool to have.

I really, really hate it when people decide "they did/didn't do it in 1984" is a good reason to make decisions now. No one cares about what they did in 1984.

I still do, because something being old has no bearing on its value.