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

[Reynard]

.

I am honestly baffled why this is even really a question. Why did they pull 20 pages of rules from the DMG? Because not enough people used them. Why did they add 40 pages of planar stuff? Because people are using that material. It's not rocket science.

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"?

 

[Imaro]

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 they are more niche products that are more likely to be discovered, bought and used by hard-core DM's of 5e( the type that would actually try to use monster creation rules) as opposed to the muuch wider and much more casual, general audience of D&D...

I mean even in this thread there are a miniscule number of posters actually upset about the loss of the rules (many of whom have sworn off D&D by WotC anyway) most seem to think it's not a big deal or that it's a missed nice to have but not essential to the game.

 

[grimmgoose]

This. Right here. It keeps getting repeated and ignored.

The reason there are no monster creation rules in the 2024 DMG is because they were not being used in the first place. Yes, yes, I know YOU used them. I know that YOUR monsters were all bespoke works of art that epitomized the unique nature of every single individual.

But, the most likely truth is that most of us (and I'm certainly including myself in here) didn't use the rules. You either ran the monster as is from the book, or maybe tweaked a bit here or there, or you picked up one of the bajillion monster books out there and then used that.

I am honestly baffled why this is even really a question. Why did they pull 20 pages of rules from the DMG? Because not enough people used them. Why did they add 40 pages of planar stuff? Because people are using that material. It's not rocket science.

My suspicion is the dnd beyond numbers showed them that the number of people who both homebrewed and actually used the monster creation rules RAW was miniscule enough that for them it would have been a waste of effort and space to include them.

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.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I haven't used it in a minute, but the monster Gen on D&DB isn't a worksheet, it's a template maker. I had hoped it allow you to click, enter a number, and it would automatically calculate things based on it. That it would automatically calculate attack rolls based on Str/Dex and prof bonus and run CR calculations for you. But it doesn't, it is basically a bunch of boxes you type your finished work into and it makes an official looking stat block.

Ironically, you know what it's best for? Making cosmetic changes to existing statblocks. Add a small feature, change a few details, substitute damage types, etc. Exactly what 2024 DMG suggests. Is that a self fulfilling prophecy? Maybe. But the fact that they couldn't figure out how to implement that 20 step workflow into a usable digital tool speaks volumes on how "easy" those rules were to use.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Following the monster creation rules RAW... you create monsters in 5 mins?

 

[Li Shenron]

I really don't think that the reason is that "monster creation is an art and not a science". Stronghold design is even less a science, and adventure/campaign design is A LOT LESS a science than monster creation! But they are still featured in the DMG.

I think the most reasonable explanation is simply that WotC thinks that monster creation is less attractive than other topics to sell the new DMG. Or to be less cynical, they think it is generally useful to a smaller number of DMs compared to other topics, whether they are right about that or not.

 

[R_J_K75]

Because monster creation is an art, not a science. The only rule is there are no rules.

This is my opinion too. I don't remember how good any of the other rules for creating monsters in other editions worked. I personally never used them much. I think it's a case of they aren't addressing it to save face, not a good look to say we don't really have a clear and defined system we just try our best.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is true that that outcome (them giving up) doesn't give the result you or I would like to see. I would love some working monster creation guidelines, and while we're at it, also spell, magic item, feat and class creation guidelines. I would love to see these, even though I'm not likely to use them much or ever. I'm simply curious about seeing under the hood.

However, as excuses go, the one we seem to be hypothesizing here doesn't really seem like a bad one: "Our market research indicates that very few people ever used the thing, and our efforts to come up with a new thing that will be better received than the old thing aren't giving us good results" seems like a pretty good excuse to give up on a thing. Or at least suggests making that thing a lower priority, perhaps to be revisited later.

I would respect that opinion from WotC (though I will never agree with it) if and only if they actually say so in a public fashion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because they are more niche products that are more likely to be discovered, bought and used by hard-core DM's of 5e( the type that would actually try to use monster creation rules) as opposed to the muuch wider and much more casual, general audience of D&D...

I mean even in this thread there are a miniscule number of posters actually upset about the loss of the rules (many of whom have sworn off D&D by WotC anyway) most seem to think it's not a big deal or that it's a missed nice to have but not essential to the game.

Unless there's a poll with actual numbers, please don't assume that most people just happen to agree with your opinion on this. I've seen plenty of folks here you do see it as a problem.

 

[dave2008]

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

Maybe that is why every alt 5e has so few players - you have solved it! Cut the monster creation rules!