D&D 5E (2024) Why No Monster Creation Rules in D&D 2024?

[Reynard]

A flawed system is better than no system.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Easy there pardner!

Its not "THE" reason to make decisions, but it could be "A" reason that influences decisions.

 

[Quickleaf]

A flawed system is better than no system.

The YouTube video -that I can’t remember creator of- where I heard him reference that …something Goblin something blog interview with Jeremy (I looked it up but feels like ages ago)… in that video the creator drew a parallel to the internal WotC approach and the 2024 playtest of the Rogue’s feature to swap out Sneak Attack damage dice for conditions.

 

[SkidAce]

Good heavens! You do realize where you are, right? I think I’m coming down with case of the Vapors… Where’s my fainting couch?

Fantastic. +1.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm sympathetic to two main concerns I've seen.

1. The creation rules are not newbie friendly, and they wanted to target newbies more. This makes some sense to me, and is something I can get behind in principle. This still ruins how I use D&D, but I'm definitely a pretty elite user. I do wish WotC wasn't afraid of teaching DMs in their books, but I kind of get it. Here's me hoping for a revised system in a future book (which may also include species / class / subclass /etc. design guideance!).
2. The creation rules caused a lot of unfounded griping. No monster creation system can be perfect, and there will always be exceptions to the guidelines, but the main chatter around the creation system was that "it's bad," either because it wasn't perfect, or because people didn't really understand how to use it. Wizards decided that no system was better than a system that was attracting so much negative attention, or couldn't figure out how to present the system in a way that wouldn't give this sort of false impression, and so they just dropped it. This situation is a bit more dire, because it implies that we may never see an updated monster creation system.

But, the monster building system was critical to how I was running D&D games and it worked very well for me (in combo with Xanathar's encounter building rules). So it's one of the big things that makes me unhappy to run 5.24. Until it's fixed, it's gonna be a problem for me, since I can't run games in D&D the way I want without it. Whatever the reason for keeping it out, I want to see it put back in, as soon as possible.

 

[Remathilis]

A flawed system is better than no system.

Is it?

How many D&D players know what a "ribbon" feature is? What percentage do you think have never heard of it. 80%, 70%, 60%? We know about it because once upon a time WotC mentioned it with discussing how to make a subclass on their website. Every Uber fan, game designer and optimizer picked up on the term, but the rank and file players don't know. Most of them don't think about the weight of a mechanic, they say "oh cool, I get martial weapons and proficiency in a skill/tool/language" and move on. They don't care how or why the system works, they just go along with it.

Those monster creation rules in 2014 act like you don't need any understanding of the design philosophy of 5e monsters, but that is a lie. You absolutely need to know what works and what doesn't to create a viable monster. You have to understand why creatures are built the way they are. Why an 18th level archmage is only CR 12. Why basilisk's aren't one hit kills. Why dragons are hit much harder than other creatures of their CR. You need to learn concepts like average damage per round and tactical complexity to determine CR. And even things that look "simple" (giving legendary actions and resistance to a goblin boss to make a bbeg) requires rebuilding from the ground up.

How many players do you think have that kind of knowledge? 80%, 70%, 60%?

You and I will miss those rules because you and I are the DMs who like to tinker. Build new subclasses, design new monsters. We understand theory, design and balancing. Lots of people don't. Imagine a piano book that teaches you how to play the piano having a second called "how to compose a sonata". Buddy, I just learned where to put my hands on the keyboard, don't go asking me music theory!

Flawed tools are bad because they make a complex and complicated task seem easy when it's not to the average player. Us above average players may balk, but I can tell you bad rules frustrate DMs more than they help.

 

[Reynard]

Is it?

yes.

How many D&D players know what a "ribbon" feature is?

What does that have to do with anything?

Those monster creation rules in 2014 act like you don't need any understanding of the design philosophy of 5e monsters, but that is a lie. You absolutely need to know what works and what doesn't to create a viable monster. You have to understand why creatures are built the way they are. Why an 18th level archmage is only CR 12. Why basilisk's aren't one hit kills. Why dragons are hit much harder than other creatures of their CR. You need to learn concepts like average damage per round and tactical complexity to determine CR. And even things that look "simple" (giving legendary actions and resistance to a goblin boss to make a bbeg) requires rebuilding from the ground up.

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.

How many players do you think have that kind of knowledge? 80%, 70%, 60%?

Who cares?

You and I will miss those rules because you and I are the DMs who like to tinker. Build new subclasses, design new monsters. We understand theory, design and balancing. Lots of people don't. Imagine a piano book that teaches you how to play the piano having a second called "how to compose a sonata". Buddy, I just learned where to put my hands on the keyboard, don't go asking me music theory!

Again, you learn by doing, by making stuff that sucks. It is no different than drawing or writing or singing or carpentry.

 

[dave2008]

A flawed system is better than no system.

I am not saying this is what the 2014 guidelines where; however, a flawed system that always gives wrong answers is definitely not, IMO, better than no system.

 

[Reynard]

I am not saying this is what the 2014 guidelines where; however, a flawed system that always gives wrong answers is definitely not, IMO, better than no system.

No one was talking about that. Context matters.

 

[dave2008]

Context matters.

Exactly, that is why I provided some!

However, even without going to that extreme a flawed a system can be worse than no system.