Quote from Erik_Soong >>

 Actually, that is how burden of proof works. You made the positive claim (or implied one) that there is a meaningful difference in D&D players and how they play between those who choose to take surveys and those who do not. The burden of proof, therefore, becomes yours upon making that claim. Back it up with evidence or it will be dismissed.

It's fairly obvious that the people who visit D&D websites and take the time to fill out polls have a different attitude towards the game than the people who get together a couple times a month with their gaming group and don't think about the game the rest of the time. Only polling high engagement players is a problem a lot of games have.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

 Actually, that is how burden of proof works. You made the positive claim (or implied one) that there is a meaningful difference in D&D players and how they play between those who choose to take surveys and those who do not. The burden of proof, therefore, becomes yours upon making that claim. Back it up with evidence or it will be dismissed.

It's fairly obvious that the people who visit D&D websites and take the time to fill out polls have a different attitude towards the game than the people who get together a couple times a month with their gaming group and don't think about the game the rest of the time. Only polling high engagement players is a problem a lot of games have.

 So... just your opinion then? Dismissed!

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

 So... just your opinion then? Dismissed!

 Nope. My burden of proof is "point out a plausibly relevant distinction between the two populations". At that point, the polltaker has to explain why they believe this distinction is not relevant, or come up with a means of correcting for that distinction. So... why do you believe that this distinction is not relevant?

Self-selection bias is a well established phenomenon.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

 So... just your opinion then? Dismissed!

 Nope. My burden of proof is "point out a plausibly relevant distinction between the two populations". At that point, the polltaker has to explain why they believe this distinction is not relevant, or come up with a means of correcting for that distinction. So... why do you believe that this distinction is not relevant?

 But you haven't pointed out a plausibly relevant distinction between two populations. You certainly are asserting that there is one and you are doing an awful lot of work to avoid having to demonstrate how you came to hold this opinion. That which is asserted without evidence... well, I am sure you know the rest.

This conversation has moved so far off topic, i'm surprised it hasn't been locked. 

Quote from HarmAssassin >>

This conversation has moved so far off topic, i'm surprised it hasn't been locked. 

 Thanks for the callout. It is easy to lose track of the actual topic when some discussions catch my interests. I apologize.

Getting back on topic, I do not really mind too much that there is only one monster that is at CR 30. It would be nice if there were more, and I recall that the designers wanted to incentivize higher tier play, you can still get a CR 30 threat with CR 20+ monsters. I mentioned in another thread that I appreciate the conversion page. I also think there is a good spread of monsters by type and groups. Habitats is another nice way to categorize them. Of course, I only can see this in digital form, which makes things very easy to organize. I did see some valid complaints before about how the organization doesn't really work well in print.

But CRs 14, 15, 18, 19, and 25 seem a bit empty. That does make it harder to argue that the designers followed through on their stated desire to incentivize higher tier play. But then again, maybe they are considering the MM to be the template by which we use to add more monsters to our games. 60%, after all.

While there are still fewer monsters at the higher CR'S than the lower ones, there are still a lot more in the 2024 book compared to the 2014, and for me that is really the important part. I have new fey, new giants, new oozes, new elementals, new humanoids at higher CR's capable of challenging my tier 3 and 4 players making it feel a little less stale. Groups of CR 7's as minions also feel good.

As I observed earlier, CRs 26, 27, 28, and 29 are absent.

For the most part, the higher the CR, the fewer the options -- which works, in my mind, even though I would prefer to see them spread out much more evenly and would organize certain monsters differently.

One thing that does stand out to me is the absence of the beings who would occupy those higher tiers -- No Asmodeus or Orcus, no Fae Lords, and the like. Went to grab Asmodeus stat block for creating something and was startled to not see him in there.

So I am expecting an updated Tome of Foes, which actually has Foes instead of just monsters in it -- and it will be all the big bads of the regular game. And with a "secret" book coming out later this year, and some comments made in the videos, I have a small hope (20% fanciful probability) that it will happen this year.

I wouldn't expect stats on the likes of Titania or Asmodeus from WotC anytime soon; looking at the 2014 DMG and which beings got stats in the Tome of Foes and similar works, it's fairly clear that they've decided to present beings who rate as full-fledged deities or equivalent positions as something core player facing options cannot affect. Now, the distinction does exist since Orcus had an entry in prior books and if you look at the Domains of Delight supplement they brought out a while ago, there's notes on how to adapt a statblock to an archfey. Now, they'll most likely bring the high tier fiends from Tome of Foes/Monsters of the Multiverse forward sooner or later, but I don't think they're gonna be offering options to square off with the ruler of Hell or the Queen of a Fey court.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

 No no, leave those goalposts where they are. You're not alluding to a mere slant in the survey responses, but the notion that huge swaths of the playerbase are not capable of being represented in them at all.

There is a huge swath of the playerbase that does not meaningfully interact with D&D media (many don't interact with D&D at all outside of their games). This group is hard to poll (it's hard to even know how many there are, though counting sales of the PHB is at least a semi-plausible proxy).

If there's no meaningful way to poll this group, then there's no reason not to continue basing their business decisions on the responses they are getting.

Quote from Linklite >>

If they can't account for it...the numbers are crap.

I suggest you not hold your breath waiting for them to stop using surveys.

Well, Chains of Asmodeus does exist, but based on Tiamat, you're probably only expected to face an aspect of a divine being.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I wouldn't expect stats on the likes of Titania or Asmodeus from WotC anytime soon; looking at the 2014 DMG and which beings got stats in the Tome of Foes and similar works, it's fairly clear that they've decided to present beings who rate as full-fledged deities or equivalent positions as something core player facing options can affect. Now, the distinction does exist since Orcus had an entry in prior books and if you look at the Domains of Delight supplement they brought out a while ago, there's notes on how to adapt a statblock to an archfey. Now, they'll most likely bring the high tier fiends from Tome of Foes/Monsters of the Multiverse forward sooner or later, but I don't think they're gonna be offering options to square off with the ruler of Hell or the Queen of a Fey court.

 
Awww, that's a little sad.

I mean, they appeared in the first MM, and the 1e DMG has that entire little adventure play out beneath the random tables where the party of four faces him down. Those meandering strips made me love him as a baddie.

TO your point, though, WotC made him a deity -- and in doing so, moved him into the place where in my worlds he simply cannot be killed (I don't do the "kill a god" storylines). I dislike that, but as we've noted, WotC gonna WotC.

A book of Friends & Foes, where they give stats for all the folks listed in the 2024 DMG Lore glossary would be nice. And would be fitting for the 50th anniversary.

They might have some of these characters in their setting books. I feel setting books are typically where you want both faction and unique monster stat blocks as well as legendary figure npc's and dieties of those realms.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

 Actually, that is how burden of proof works. You made the positive claim (or implied one) that there is a meaningful difference in D&D players and how they play between those who choose to take surveys and those who do not. The burden of proof, therefore, becomes yours upon making that claim. Back it up with evidence or it will be dismissed.

It's fairly obvious that the people who visit D&D websites and take the time to fill out polls have a different attitude towards the game than the people who get together a couple times a month with their gaming group and don't think about the game the rest of the time. Only polling high engagement players is a problem a lot of games have.

 If disengaged players have a vastly different opinion from engaged players and want an opinion on the future of the game, then perhaps they should become more engaged and actually take part in the surveys they want to share an opinion on. The surveys take less than 30 minutes. If they don't care enough to bother to do that, then they don't care enough about the future of the game for WotC to need to take their opinions into consideration. Besides highly engaged players generally tend to have a more educated opinion about the game than disengaged players anyway.

If nothing else highly engaged players will, by definition, be buying more products closer to release, ergo being the more relevant market segment. 

Unsurprisingly, in most cases of market research, folks who respond with negative comments get their entire segment shunted to a secondary pile, and have no direct influence on direction, only response to complaints.

since the default response is usually “say nothing”, there needs to be something of significant value in those negative responses to make them useful.

it reminds me of the “change from inside” problem around policing.

I should point out that some lower level monsters did get weaker, cause they were overtuned in 2014. Monsters of CR 5 and up are generally where most of the buffs went. The new encounter building rules also should be taken into account for battles with monsters. Monsters are generally stronger overall throughout the book.

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Quote from Ashla_Mason >>

 

4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.

1) The aspirations are there. Ogres raid vulnerable communities. Sphinxes guard the secrets of the multiverse. Barbed Devils scour the planes for treasure. Fomorians want to spread their curse. And so on. That's more than enough to help you decide whether to use a given monster or not.

2) Why would "social structure and history" be in setting agnostic material? Those are setting-specific by definition.

 The 5.5 MM vs the 5e MM Barbed devil descriptions

5e-"Infernal collectors, barbed devils fanatically protect troves of treasure and scour the planes of existence for additions to their hoards. Also known as hamatulas among the ranks of the Nine Hells, these devils bedeck their barbed hides with their most prized possessions and trophies taken from those who failed to steal from them. When threatened, barbed devils strike with their thorny limbs and hurl infernal flame.

 

Barbed devils often serve as guards and accountants for ice devil generals, pit fiend warlords, archdevils, and similarly powerful villains. In return, barbed devils gain protection for their own collections. Many barbed devils also maintain networks of imps that search the planes for treasures of interest or usefully greedy mortals.

 

Barbed devils rarely collect anything as prosaic as coins and gems. Rather, they pride themselves on having the multiverse’s greatest collection of one kind of thing—typically items of rare pedigree or emblems of power. Barbed devils refuse to steal what they covet; instead they strike bargains to claim both treasure and mortal souls."

 

5.5e-"Creatures of unbridled greed and desire, barbed devils act as guards to the more powerful denizens of the Nine Hells and their vaults. Resembling a tall humanoid covered in sharp barbs, spines, and hooks, a barbed devil has gleaming eyes that are ever watchful for objects and creatures it might claim for itself. These fiends welcome any chance to fight when victory promises reward.

 

Barbed devils are known for an alertness that makes them difficult to surprise, and they attend to their duties without boredom or distraction. They use their sharp claws as weapons or hurl balls of flame at foes that try to flee them."

 

Looking to use one in a game, without knowing about them the 5e description is magnitudes better and comes far closer to the simplified description you used.

How is someone with out knowledge of Barbed devils supposed to take away they "scour the planes for treasure" frome the 5.5e description?

 

 

 You literally quoted the descriptions backwards. No clue how no one pointed this out. 

Besides... male medusas and female satyrs... uh..

Any lesser known Chromatic, Metallic + main and lesser known 5 Gem dragons in the book?

Quote from Ravnar >>

Besides... male medusas and female satyrs... uh..

Any lesser known Chromatic, Metallic + main and lesser known 5 Gem dragons in the book?

 

 
Not that I see. 

just the standard ones.