You appear to have incorrectly formatted the link for the Lich in this article.  Either the open should be a singular monster, or the close the plural monsters, but you've mixed both and it doesn't work.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from MSLabo102 >>

They did not have ANY info on customization - They're actively trying to deter us from homebrewing. The spirit caused OGL fiasco is still there.

 
You made this exact same post on another article. It was dead wrong on that article; it is dead wrong here as well. On the off chance someone reads your post and mistakenly thinks it reflects reality, I am going to copy my response:

This is patently and demonstrably false. There’s an entire section on creating your own creatures in the DMG.  Additionally, there plenty of information in the new Monster Manual on Homenrewing, including recommended hitpoint values, proficiency bonuses.

 

 I have to agree with the original quote being dead wrong. 

If anything, they are leaving us with no choice but to homebrew. The utter lack of lore alone is cause enough, but now with the monster manual update, there is not only a lack of lore, but also a lack of explanation and description on a huge amount of monster abilities. As if the name of the ability and it's damage and attack bonus or saving through DC is all that needs to be known.

I’m sorry, how in the hell did they not include orcs in the new MM?

Quote from zedkabgi >>

I’m sorry, how in the hell did they not include orcs in the new MM?

 
No PHB playable species are included in the monster manual.  Instead, they went with specific generic roles (mage, bandit, noble, etc.) that can be applied to any playable species.  If you want to make something feel even more specific to an orc, that is easy to do - take a Mage, slap Relentless Endurance on it… boom.  Orc Mage.

Lolz. You all be funny! Chill out Frances.

what about goblins kobolds and other races that are more then likely coming whenever they get around to it? those races are still in the monster manual. Why add those but leave the PHB ones out? the inconsistences like this are why Hasbro is loosing more and more people to PF2e. not to mention the amount of content just isnt enough compared to their competitors who push out more lore, monsters, classes, subclasses, races/species/ancestries, items, and systems. not to mention their stuff is FREE for any and everyone to use and play were as WOTC is selling 3 separate books for $60 a pop. Them shoving a ton of art in a book isnt an excuse to have less content.

.

@Caerwyn_Glyndwr Thank you for giving me some very useful information on the 2024 DMG & MM. I might look into buying these awesome books later, but now I know that it gives info on the monsters Homebrew stats and that kind of thing. I was wondering if the DMG or MM had more information on how to homebrew monsters, because the last one had quite small amounts, and implied that you already knew how from last edition it seems. Sorry if I'm pestering you, but this is just a general question to anyone who can answer it: Does the DMG or MM have more homebrewing information?

For monsters no. It just gives a list of traits you can add and tells you that you are allowed to reflavor damage types. If you are only getting them for monster homebrewing then they are useless. The MM does give a ton of new templates for you to use though, so it is still a great resource for premade things. It does not help with creating your own from scratch at all.

It's concerning that anyone would need ten pages to understand how to create a monster. Thankfully, the DMG fully explains monster creation in Creating a Creature.

That section reads: "Use the approaches and examples in the following sections to build custom creatures for your game." Put simply, follow the DMG's instructions. You don't need to have your hand held (in fact, everyone here obviously knows enough to homebrew–this is an argument about "hypothetical" people who need instruction). In Minor Alterations, the DMG details how each component of a stat block can be altered.

The DMG's focus on altering existing stat blocks rather than creating them from scratch is not only logical but also the best advice. DMs who need to be instructed in how to create monsters should work off existing stat blocks so that they can learn the ins and outs of creating creatures. This will teach the DM how to accomplish what they want to accomplish while staying within the language conventions and standards of D&D creature design.

If Wizards were to actually list out all of the instructions for creating creatures, the section would take up a huge portion of the DMG. For example, there would need to be a page dedicated to explaining that the names of traits, actions, bonus actions, reactions, and legendary actions should be bolded and italicized, including the period. Then there would need to be a section on what terms following the name should be bolded, italicized, or underlined. Then another section on the order in which to list items. Then another section on when to use passive voice and when to use active voice. Then another section on how the 2024–25 conventions for capitalization. I could go on. The point is that DMs are better served by simply seeing the format and working off of it (because unlike official products, homebrew doesn't need to be perfect). Once they have done that, DMs won't need instructions on how to create monsters—they will have essentially done it.

On the issue of how to know how many hit dice to use, etc. That's up to you. It's literally homebrew. If you want to be told what to do, then you'd do exactly what the DMG tells you to do! There are no "rules" for homebrew by definition, and lamenting a lack of rules is incoherent.

These criticisms thus far are unfounded, and they do not accurately reference what the DMG and MM offer.

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

It's concerning that anyone would need ten pages to understand how to create a monster. Thankfully, the DMG fully explains monster creation in Creating a Creature.

That section reads: "Use the approaches and examples in the following sections to build custom creatures for your game." Put simply, follow the DMG's instructions. You don't need to have your hand held (in fact, everyone here obviously knows enough to homebrew–this is an argument about "hypothetical" people who need instruction). In Minor Alterations, the DMG details how each component of a stat block can be altered.

The DMG's focus on altering existing stat blocks rather than creating them from scratch is not only logical but also the best advice. DMs who need to be instructed in how to create monsters should work off existing stat blocks so that they can learn the ins and outs of creating creatures. This will teach the DM how to accomplish what they want to accomplish while staying within the language conventions and standards of D&D creature design.

If Wizards were to actually list out all of the instructions for creating creatures, the section would take up a huge portion of the DMG. For example, there would need to be a page dedicated to explaining that the names of traits, actions, bonus actions, reactions, and legendary actions should be bolded and italicized, including the period. Then there would need to be a section on what terms following the name should be bolded, italicized, or underlined. Then another section on the order in which to list items. Then another section on when to use passive voice and when to use active voice. Then another section on how the 2024–25 conventions for capitalization. I could go on. The point is that DMs are better served by simply seeing the format and working off of it (because unlike official products, homebrew doesn't need to be perfect). Once they have done that, DMs won't need instructions on how to create monsters—they will have essentially done it.

On the issue of how to know how many hit dice to use, etc. That's up to you. It's literally homebrew. If you want to be told what to do, then you'd do exactly what the DMG tells you to do! There are no "rules" for homebrew by definition, and lamenting a lack of rules is incoherent.

These criticisms thus far are unfounded, and they do not accurately reference what the DMG and MM offer.

Its funny that you link the section that says follow these examples, before it immediately jumps to minor alterations. If I literally followed these examples I would not be able to create because the only examples are alterations, but over all I do agree that hombrewing a monster should mostly be common sense. My annoyance is that it used to exist, and people appreciated it, so why remove it? trying to run out modules without a clear way to update monsters is an absolute pain.

Okay so how about how much damage? I am currently running out of the Abyss, how would you scale the old Demon Lords to the new 2024 standard? I will happily agree with you that I do not need a step by step guide, but If they could at least update the damned chart and just give me that its better than nothing. Demogorgon from MMotM does only 100 something damage a round including legendary actions but has good CC with the gaze. by 2024 standards he seems like a CR12 with the health of a CR20, yet he needs to be a CR26. His damage is literally the same as the CR12 Archmage, But somehow he actually does more damage than the CR19 Balor which only deals 77 damage a round not counting aura, so maybe he is already balanced because he has way more health? Or maybe the Death Knight a CR17 who does 150 damage a round, but colossus at CR25 is 192 damage a round, which is weird because again CR19 is only 77 damage a round maybe 103 with 2 in the aura. Anything above the 192 a round would just be flat out too much, since that would allow you to 1 turn down potentially 2 players or even 3 on high rolls if they are squishy casters, and way over kills the other demon lords, but it is also the closest template.

kind of hard to know since we don't know how they judge things. As this isn't my first time running OotA I know roughly how to balance him, but if this is your first time as a DM I have no idea how you would know what to do. His 2014 version gets curb stomped by a level 13 party of 4 unless they roll really poorly. Orcus and Grazz't aren't any better, but I guess you could just make Orcus a Lich with more health and the Wand. No idea what the hell I use as a template for Grazz't or Yeenogu, and honestly I am not sure how I will handle them yet even with experience, other than just increase damage and health I guess, but not sure to what degree.

The MM is great, and I love the new humanoid NPCs which save a ton of time prepping things, but the DMG needs to have more on homebrew than "Here is a bit of flavor text, just make sure you don't change the CR". There is a reason the old one had 10 pages dedicated to homebrew monsters, and not just "Minor Alterations". We got a chart that shows you a rough estimate for magic items, and one for spells, why the hell not for monsters, the thing that is the hardest to balance without play testing. We need to be able to alter old stat blocks, which we were told wouldn't be hard and we would have guidance to do. Where is that guidance? How the hell do you do acererak? in the old 2014 version he just got more high level spell slots and double health. Since new lich doesn't even have spell slots or really a reason to cast his spells instead of just spam eldritch blast not sure how that works, and you sure as hell cannot double the new lich health for him, since 600+ health is not a CR23. High CR is where we need this guidance the most, low CR has a million templates and is honestly pretty idiot proof, which is what the new MM did best. 

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

It's concerning that anyone would need ten pages to understand how to create a monster. Thankfully, the DMG fully explains monster creation in Creating a Creature.

Your choice of the words "fully explains" shoots right past "needlessly generous" into "straightforwardly wrong." The bare minimum for explaining monster creation would cover the expected offensive and defensive attributes of a creature based on its CR.

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

That section reads: "Use the approaches and examples in the following sections to build custom creatures for your game." Put simply, follow the DMG's instructions. You don't need to have your hand held (in fact, everyone here obviously knows enough to homebrew–this is an argument about "hypothetical" people who need instruction). In Minor Alterations, the DMG details how each component of a stat block can be altered.

Wrong again! You're reading the secret Director's Cut DMG if it details how "each component of a stat block can be altered!" Here's a non-exhaustive list of components of a stat block that the Minor Alterations section does not detail how to alter: Hit Points, Armor Class, Conditions it's able to inflict, Movement types/speeds, and Initiative modifier (though advantage on initiative rolls is listed in the next section as a trait you can add). Also, there's nothing hypothetical about the people who need instruction; you yourself didn't know how to homebrew a proper monster once!

Quote from TheOtherRyan>>

The DMG's focus on altering existing stat blocks rather than creating them from scratch is not only logical but also the best advice. DMs who need to be instructed in how to create monsters should work off existing stat blocks so that they can learn the ins and outs of creating creatures. This will teach the DM how to accomplish what they want to accomplish while staying within the language conventions and standards of D&D creature design.

There's a good point here. Reading existing stat blocks is important for familiarizing one's self with design conventions and standards. But I have to ask here if we even mean the same thing anymore when we're talking about creating monsters. There's nothing to learn about baking a cake by just decorating one. If you're working off an existing stat block, then the "ins and outs of creating creatures" don't even come up! If you want to create something from scratch, you have to know how its HP, AC, attack bonus, and damage interact with each other to form its CR, since as the DMG painstakingly and repeatedly points out, those have to be right! You can't just develop a vibe for how they fit together because of the large number of factors affecting them (magic resistance, legendary resistance, flight, area-of-effect damage, half dmg on save vs. no dmg on save, etc.).

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

If Wizards were to actually list out all of the instructions for creating creatures, the section would take up a huge portion of the DMG. For example, there would need to be a page dedicated to explaining that the names of traits, actions, bonus actions, reactions, and legendary actions should be bolded and italicized, including the period. Then there would need to be a section on what terms following the name should be bolded, italicized, or underlined. Then another section on the order in which to list items. Then another section on when to use passive voice and when to use active voice. Then another section on how the 2024–25 conventions for capitalization. I could go on.

Good one! By hiding this halfway into the post you really almost got me to engage with these bad-faith fake opinions. 6/10 effort.

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

The point is that DMs are better served by simply seeing the format and working off of it (because unlike official products, homebrew doesn't need to be perfect). Once they have done that, DMs won't need instructions on how to create monsters—they will have essentially done it.

On the issue of how to know how many hit dice to use, etc. That's up to you. It's literally homebrew. If you want to be told what to do, then you'd do exactly what the DMG tells you to do! There are no "rules" for homebrew by definition, and lamenting a lack of rules is incoherent.

And here we have the big pivot! You abandon the "the DMG fully explains monster creation" position you've spent so many words defending and instead adopt the stance that it doesn't matter if it explains monster creation or not because getting a monster's numbers right isn't actually as important as the DMG says and you can just make whatever and it's okay because it's not an official product that's going to affect anybody! Except the people at your table I guess!

Quote from TheOtherRyan>>

These criticisms thus far are unfounded, and they do not accurately reference what the DMG and MM offer.

no u

I don't have the 2024 core books, this is all trying to understand from posts what is and is not there for creating monsters from scratch or updating older monsters. From the previous posts, it appears the Monster Creation section in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide is lacking an 'At a glance general overview' chart, however accurate or inaccurate it was. The lack of this easy to view chart system in the 2024 DMG (and possibly the Monster Manual) is a point of complaint and criticism for the 2024 DMG. 

From what I can understand, the kinds of information provided on creating monsters would be useful for very new, and less experienced DM's, where doing small changes can help with flavor, but the overall monster should still be close to what is published (and considered mostly balanced for general use).
I don't think those seeking to homebrew were hoping for absolute spelling out of the text formatting, but they were hoping for a bit more in the way of a system and formula break down, in a visible form that they could use to get homebrew monsters to at least a reasonable starting point, a foundation of sorts to build upon. What they were told is, the foundation is: 'go look through this other book, until you find a monster, or monsters'. Then basically be like Frankenstein and piece together a monster based on parts of other stat blocks. That process is useful and a valid tool for building, though not exactly formulaic. It may create reasonably balanced monsters, but seems devoid of understanding about how to create reasonably balanced monsters. It is also potentially more useful for those with access to the given source materials, but means looking through a lot of monsters.

Setting aside the argument about the books. I wondered what options there were for calculating damage. And a fair warning, the process would mean doing a considerable amount of math. I believe the 2014 DMG looked at the monster damage over the course of 3 rounds. The examples were usually based off the monster choosing to use its most damaging option each turn. It is possible to get a range of damage, and the average amount of damage over the course of 3 turns using this method. The method is not entirely accurate, because monsters will not take the option that uses the most damage each turn, and it might not account well for attacks that miss. But it is still valid to see 'if I use a monster like this, what kinds of moves would I make, and how much damage would they do as a result'? 
One of the parts in the combat could be factoring in the parties hit points as well. How many hit points does the party have on average? How many hit points can the party regain over time? And roughly, how many turns or rounds do you want the combat to take? If you want monsters to kill a party quickly, they will need to be doing high damage over a short period of time (say about 2-4 rounds), or at least more than damage than the players can regain in hit points over the same amount of time, even if the monsters do not take their most damaging option or hit every single attack. Basically (Average monster damage) x (amount of rounds) = to or > (Average party hit points+ Average hit point regain) x (amount of rounds) for monster victory. (This is a simplified version, it does not include party damage, monster HP, or chances to hit.)
One of the points that the 2024 updates did was changing some of the monsters legendary actions and lair actions so that those allowed for damage as well as flavor uses. It seems to me with bosses like Orcus, Grazz't, and the Demogorgon, some of the updates should be looking at those as well. Do any of these guys have lairs that could be included in the fights? Maybe for Grazz't a lot of his could revolve around the information for him. I forget the details, but I think he was one of the demon lords that focused on lust, and was related to the Incubus, Succubus and other creatures. Some of his attacks, and legendary actions can focus on disarming charming, or seduction. Maybe play in with illusions for his lair or have ways that his lair could provide him with some sort of buffer. Even if the location is not actually a lair, his presence could allow for some warping effect that could turn the location into a temporary lair, with reduced effects.
Either in addition or alternatively, allow for some of the bosses to have minions and underlings as well. Orcus could certainly summon the dead, Grazz't seems like he would bring allies too. The demogorgon might not have allies but maybe make some of his attacks affect terrain and damage surroundings. (I say all this, but I have not played Out of the Abyss or seen any of the stat blocks for these guys.)

I guess to return to the argument, the formula and information were parts that were said to be lacking in the 2024 book. I mentioned that the damage calculations can take a lot of math, and it would be appreciated to have a chart that did some of that math already, but from what I can read the book does not. (Which can be understandable, considering there is limited space, and the charts were already held to be very inaccurate.) The book is really only one source of information, and homebrewing can be very tricky in all the many aspects, so it would also be useful to use forums, and videos and other sources. Maybe down the road they can release more of a Homebrewing tips and tricks book. Otherwise third party sources might be more useful than the 2024 DMG were on the subject.

(And if anyone got through all that text; major congratulations to you. I spent far too many hours on it.)

And later addition: I did also read more recently that it is much harder for some to understand the calculations behind the stat blocks from looking at the stat blocks in the 2024 Monster Manual, as the calculations do not match what would be expected from similar gear and rules stated by the Player's Hand Book. It can be much harder to create monsters with a reasonable balance when the template examples feel like numbers are being arbitrarily assigned. 

Quote from theron >>

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

It's concerning that anyone would need ten pages to understand how to create a monster. Thankfully, the DMG fully explains monster creation in Creating a Creature.

That section reads: "Use the approaches and examples in the following sections to build custom creatures for your game." Put simply, follow the DMG's instructions. You don't need to have your hand held (in fact, everyone here obviously knows enough to homebrew–this is an argument about "hypothetical" people who need instruction). In Minor Alterations, the DMG details how each component of a stat block can be altered.

The DMG's focus on altering existing stat blocks rather than creating them from scratch is not only logical but also the best advice. DMs who need to be instructed in how to create monsters should work off existing stat blocks so that they can learn the ins and outs of creating creatures. This will teach the DM how to accomplish what they want to accomplish while staying within the language conventions and standards of D&D creature design.

If Wizards were to actually list out all of the instructions for creating creatures, the section would take up a huge portion of the DMG. For example, there would need to be a page dedicated to explaining that the names of traits, actions, bonus actions, reactions, and legendary actions should be bolded and italicized, including the period. Then there would need to be a section on what terms following the name should be bolded, italicized, or underlined. Then another section on the order in which to list items. Then another section on when to use passive voice and when to use active voice. Then another section on how the 2024–25 conventions for capitalization. I could go on. The point is that DMs are better served by simply seeing the format and working off of it (because unlike official products, homebrew doesn't need to be perfect). Once they have done that, DMs won't need instructions on how to create monsters—they will have essentially done it.

On the issue of how to know how many hit dice to use, etc. That's up to you. It's literally homebrew. If you want to be told what to do, then you'd do exactly what the DMG tells you to do! There are no "rules" for homebrew by definition, and lamenting a lack of rules is incoherent.

These criticisms thus far are unfounded, and they do not accurately reference what the DMG and MM offer.

Its funny that you link the section that says follow these examples, before it immediately jumps to minor alterations. If I literally followed these examples I would not be able to create because the only examples are alterations, but over all I do agree that hombrewing a monster should mostly be common sense. My annoyance is that it used to exist, and people appreciated it, so why remove it? trying to run out modules without a clear way to update monsters is an absolute pain.

Okay so how about how much damage? I am currently running out of the Abyss, how would you scale the old Demon Lords to the new 2024 standard? I will happily agree with you that I do not need a step by step guide, but If they could at least update the damned chart and just give me that its better than nothing. Demogorgon from MMotM does only 100 something damage a round including legendary actions but has good CC with the gaze. by 2024 standards he seems like a CR12 with the health of a CR20, yet he needs to be a CR26. His damage is literally the same as the CR12 Archmage, But somehow he actually does more damage than the CR19 Balor which only deals 77 damage a round not counting aura, so maybe he is already balanced because he has way more health? Or maybe the Death Knight a CR17 who does 150 damage a round, but colossus at CR25 is 192 damage a round, which is weird because again CR19 is only 77 damage a round maybe 103 with 2 in the aura. Anything above the 192 a round would just be flat out too much, since that would allow you to 1 turn down potentially 2 players or even 3 on high rolls if they are squishy casters, and way over kills the other demon lords, but it is also the closest template.

kind of hard to know since we don't know how they judge things. As this isn't my first time running OotA I know roughly how to balance him, but if this is your first time as a DM I have no idea how you would know what to do. His 2014 version gets curb stomped by a level 13 party of 4 unless they roll really poorly. Orcus and Grazz't aren't any better, but I guess you could just make Orcus a Lich with more health and the Wand. No idea what the hell I use as a template for Grazz't or Yeenogu, and honestly I am not sure how I will handle them yet even with experience, other than just increase damage and health I guess, but not sure to what degree.

The MM is great, and I love the new humanoid NPCs which save a ton of time prepping things, but the DMG needs to have more on homebrew than "Here is a bit of flavor text, just make sure you don't change the CR". There is a reason the old one had 10 pages dedicated to homebrew monsters, and not just "Minor Alterations". We got a chart that shows you a rough estimate for magic items, and one for spells, why the hell not for monsters, the thing that is the hardest to balance without play testing. We need to be able to alter old stat blocks, which we were told wouldn't be hard and we would have guidance to do. Where is that guidance? How the hell do you do acererak? in the old 2014 version he just got more high level spell slots and double health. Since new lich doesn't even have spell slots or really a reason to cast his spells instead of just spam eldritch blast not sure how that works, and you sure as hell cannot double the new lich health for him, since 600+ health is not a CR23. High CR is where we need this guidance the most, low CR has a million templates and is honestly pretty idiot proof, which is what the new MM did best. 

 I understand the anxieties that go hand-in-hand with providing your players with engaging but fair challenges. The 20,000 feet view is simply that once you're home brewing creatures, you're fully off the beaten path. WOTC has provided tools for you to navigate that process, but ultimately, the core decisions will be up to you. One of the primary tools they've provided is the library of existing stat blocks you can work from, hence the recommendation to start with "minor alternations" (linked in my original post).

Regarding your concerns for how to balance monster damage, I would, like WOTC, recommend you work off existing stat blocks. Challenge Rating is an abstraction for how difficult it is for a group of four players to defeat that monster in combat. Challenge Rating (like what it represents) depends on many factors. While some monsters at a given challenge rating can deal more damage than others, those other monsters have other features that make defeating them similarly difficult. For example, a monster that deals high damage may be similarly dangerous to a monster that deals less damage but can disengage as a bonus action, making the second monster harder to kill (and therefore able to survive more rounds in which it can deal damage to the party). So, working from stat blocks with CRs near your goal is my recommendation. Regarding demon lords specifically, I recommend using the stat blocks from MPMM rather than OoTA itself.

Many of the difficulties you enumerate are consequences of trying to create monsters from scratch—precisely what this edition recommends not doing. However, if you want to build a creature from scratch, this edition does provide all the tools necessary to do so. In Parts of a Stat Block, the MM details every component of a stat block. This information is all you need to create a monster from because you must ultimately use your judgment to do so, and no list or table can help you there. The 2014 lists and tables are an amalgamation of the stat blocks in the 2014 MM, so in both editions you're actually following the same advice. I would argue that this edition's advice is far superior because it has DMs working from real examples of stat blocks rather than abstract ideas of "hit points," "bonuses to hit," etc (which were just averages). If you have any specific concerns, I and many others are happy to help (we can advise, but the decision is your's)! But, the fact that the MM/DMG does not give you the same tools/structure with which to create homebrew monsters as a prior edition does not mean that they do not provide all the tools necessary to do so.

Quote from ChippyYYZ>>

Quote from TheOtherRyan>>

It's concerning that anyone would need ten pages to understand how to create a monster. Thankfully, the DMG fully explains monster creation in Creating a Creature.

Your choice of the words "fully explains" shoots right past "needlessly generous" into "straightforwardly wrong." The bare minimum for explaining monster creation would cover the expected offensive and defensive attributes of a creature based on its CR. 

How so? Your proposition "[t]he bare minimum for explaining monster creation would cover the expected offensive and defensive attributes of a creature based on its CR" is unsupported. To begin, you're looking at things backwards. CR is calculated when all is said and done—it's the final output. You have to decide everything else first. So, as the MM and DMG recommends, use other monsters at your desired CR as references for what offensive and defensive bonuses should be. The tables in the 2014 DMG were simply averages of the monsters in the 2014 MM (a version of what this edition recommends). Averages are not useful for several reasons. First, they rarely meet the needs of individual monsters. Second, they discount the compounding effects of averaging (e.g., the average hit points with the average damage output may put a creature below or above the CR that those averages are meant to describe). Third, they do not combine well with unique abilities and effects, which are likely to exist in homebrew monsters.

 

Quote from TheOtherRyan>>

That section reads: "Use the approaches and examples in the following sections to build custom creatures for your game." Put simply, follow the DMG's instructions. You don't need to have your hand held (in fact, everyone here obviously knows enough to homebrew–this is an argument about "hypothetical" people who need instruction). In Minor Alterations, the DMG details how each component of a stat block can be altered.

Wrong again! You're reading the secret Director's Cut DMG if it details how "each component of a stat block can be altered!" Here's a non-exhaustive list of components of a stat block that the Minor Alterations section does not detail how to alter: Hit Points, Armor Class, Conditions it's able to inflict, Movement types/speeds, and Initiative modifier (though advantage on initiative rolls is listed in the next section as a trait you can add). Also, there's nothing hypothetical about the people who need instruction; you yourself didn't know how to homebrew a proper monster once!

First, I'm not sure why you truncated the list that the DMG provides: Size and Creature Type, Ability Scores (including AC and hit points), Languages, Proficiencies, Senses, Spells, Attacks, and Resistances and Immunities. Also, as you say, Minor Alterations is followed by Traits. Second, this discussion is moot. Parts of a Stat Block fully describes every part of the stat block (this information can also be found throughout the DMG). The DM that homebrews a monster must decide what to make of each part of the monster's stat block regardless, and no table or list will change that. Once you know what something is (read, Parts of a Stat Block), you don't need to be told how to modify it when you will eventually need to decide a final value anyway (see discussion above).

Quote from TheOtherRyan>>

The DMG's focus on altering existing stat blocks rather than creating them from scratch is not only logical but also the best advice. DMs who need to be instructed in how to create monsters should work off existing stat blocks so that they can learn the ins and outs of creating creatures. This will teach the DM how to accomplish what they want to accomplish while staying within the language conventions and standards of D&D creature design.

There's a good point here. Reading existing stat blocks is important for familiarizing one's self with design conventions and standards. But I have to ask here if we even mean the same thing anymore when we're talking about creating monsters. There's nothing to learn about baking a cake by just decorating one. If you're working off an existing stat block, then the "ins and outs of creating creatures" don't even come up! If you want to create something from scratch, you have to know how its HP, AC, attack bonus, and damage interact with each other to form its CR, since as the DMG painstakingly and repeatedly points out, those have to be right! You can't just develop a vibe for how they fit together because of the large number of factors affecting them (magic resistance, legendary resistance, flight, area-of-effect damage, half dmg on save vs. no dmg on save, etc.).

The cake analogy is cute, but it is inapt. Accurate CR calculation is beyond most DMs, and that is yet another reason to work off existing stat blocks whenever possible (I think we can safely discard the argument that only DMs able to properly calculate CR should be able to homebrew monsters). CR calculation does not apply to individual monsters in specific circumstances. It is a representation of the general difficulty of a monster when fought by four characters whose level is equal to the creature's CR (this should be clear from the fact that CR goes above 20). For the vast majority of DMs, the only important aspect of CR is what proficiency bonus it provides to their monster, which will need to be decided by the DM anyway. Again, DMs will find it easier to simply work off creatures with the desired CR than to fabricate them whole-cloth. Combat Encounters also adequately describes how DMs can approximate CR.

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

If Wizards were to actually list out all of the instructions for creating creatures, the section would take up a huge portion of the DMG. For example, there would need to be a page dedicated to explaining that the names of traits, actions, bonus actions, reactions, and legendary actions should be bolded and italicized, including the period. Then there would need to be a section on what terms following the name should be bolded, italicized, or underlined. Then another section on the order in which to list items. Then another section on when to use passive voice and when to use active voice. Then another section on how the 2024–25 conventions for capitalization. I could go on.

Good one! By hiding this halfway into the post you really almost got me to engage with these bad-faith fake opinions. 6/10 effort.

Quote from TheOtherRyan >>

The point is that DMs are better served by simply seeing the format and working off of it (because unlike official products, homebrew doesn't need to be perfect). Once they have done that, DMs won't need instructions on how to create monsters—they will have essentially done it.

On the issue of how to know how many hit dice to use, etc. That's up to you. It's literally homebrew. If you want to be told what to do, then you'd do exactly what the DMG tells you to do! There are no "rules" for homebrew by definition, and lamenting a lack of rules is incoherent.

And here we have the big pivot! You abandon the "the DMG fully explains monster creation" position you've spent so many words defending and instead adopt the stance that it doesn't matter if it explains monster creation or not because getting a monster's numbers right isn't actually as important as the DMG says and you can just make whatever and it's okay because it's not an official product that's going to affect anybody! Except the people at your table I guess!

Quote from TheOtherRyan>>

These criticisms thus far are unfounded, and they do not accurately reference what the DMG and MM offer.

no u

I'll address these three sub-comments individually, in order.

(1) You may want to look into what bad faith means.

(2) The position that the DMG (a) fully explains creature creation and (b) that DMs will ultimately need to decide what each component of a homebrew monster's stat block will be are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. What you show here is that you did not truly engage with the substance of what I wrote. I welcome you to revisit it without preconceptions.

(3) See (1).

I run the risk of stating the obvious when I say this, but WOTC wants new DMs to succeed, and they have provided DMs with everything they need to that effect. I only touched on this topic in my first post, but it bears expanding: the complaints lodged in these comments are by DMs who already know how to homebrew monsters, yet those same DMs complain on behalf of a class of individuals who have not yet brought up any issue whatsoever (in fact, they haven't even had the chance to yet). These commentators simply assert that there is a problem sans evidence. Further, many complain that WOTC recommends working off existing stat blocks yet in the same breath demand WOTC provide them with specific values to input for certain components of the stat block. I recommend giving WOTC's recommendations a chance before levying these complaints.

Quote from kbeyondtraining >>

I don't have the 2024 core books, this is all trying to understand from posts what is and is not there for creating monsters from scratch or updating older monsters. From the previous posts, it appears the Monster Creation section in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide is lacking an 'At a glance general overview' chart, however accurate or inaccurate it was. The lack of this easy to view chart system in the 2024 DMG (and possibly the Monster Manual) is a point of complaint and criticism for the 2024 DMG. 

From what I can understand, the kinds of information provided on creating monsters would be useful for very new, and less experienced DM's, where doing small changes can help with flavor, but the overall monster should still be close to what is published (and considered mostly balanced for general use).
I don't think those seeking to homebrew were hoping for absolute spelling out of the text formatting, but they were hoping for a bit more in the way of a system and formula break down, in a visible form that they could use to get homebrew monsters to at least a reasonable starting point, a foundation of sorts to build upon. What they were told is, the foundation is: 'go look through this other book, until you find a monster, or monsters'. Then basically be like Frankenstein and piece together a monster based on parts of other stat blocks. That process is useful and a valid tool for building, though not exactly formulaic. It may create reasonably balanced monsters, but seems devoid of understanding about how to create reasonably balanced monsters. It is also potentially more useful for those with access to the given source materials, but means looking through a lot of monsters.

Setting aside the argument about the books. I wondered what options there were for calculating damage. And a fair warning, the process would mean doing a considerable amount of math. I believe the 2014 DMG looked at the monster damage over the course of 3 rounds. The examples were usually based off the monster choosing to use its most damaging option each turn. It is possible to get a range of damage, and the average amount of damage over the course of 3 turns using this method. The method is not entirely accurate, because monsters will not take the option that uses the most damage each turn, and it might not account well for attacks that miss. But it is still valid to see 'if I use a monster like this, what kinds of moves would I make, and how much damage would they do as a result'? 
One of the parts in the combat could be factoring in the parties hit points as well. How many hit points does the party have on average? How many hit points can the party regain over time? And roughly, how many turns or rounds do you want the combat to take? If you want monsters to kill a party quickly, they will need to be doing high damage over a short period of time (say about 2-4 rounds), or at least more than damage than the players can regain in hit points over the same amount of time, even if the monsters do not take their most damaging option or hit every single attack. Basically (Average monster damage) x (amount of rounds) = to or > (Average party hit points+ Average hit point regain) x (amount of rounds) for monster victory. (This is a simplified version, it does not include party damage, monster HP, or chances to hit.)
One of the points that the 2024 updates did was changing some of the monsters legendary actions and lair actions so that those allowed for damage as well as flavor uses. It seems to me with bosses like Orcus, Grazz't, and the Demogorgon, some of the updates should be looking at those as well. Do any of these guys have lairs that could be included in the fights? Maybe for Grazz't a lot of his could revolve around the information for him. I forget the details, but I think he was one of the demon lords that focused on lust, and was related to the Incubus, Succubus and other creatures. Some of his attacks, and legendary actions can focus on disarming charming, or seduction. Maybe play in with illusions for his lair or have ways that his lair could provide him with some sort of buffer. Even if the location is not actually a lair, his presence could allow for some warping effect that could turn the location into a temporary lair, with reduced effects.
Either in addition or alternatively, allow for some of the bosses to have minions and underlings as well. Orcus could certainly summon the dead, Grazz't seems like he would bring allies too. The demogorgon might not have allies but maybe make some of his attacks affect terrain and damage surroundings. (I say all this, but I have not played Out of the Abyss or seen any of the stat blocks for these guys.)

I guess to return to the argument, the formula and information were parts that were said to be lacking in the 2024 book. I mentioned that the damage calculations can take a lot of math, and it would be appreciated to have a chart that did some of that math already, but from what I can read the book does not. (Which can be understandable, considering there is limited space, and the charts were already held to be very inaccurate.) The book is really only one source of information, and homebrewing can be very tricky in all the many aspects, so it would also be useful to use forums, and videos and other sources. Maybe down the road they can release more of a Homebrewing tips and tricks book. Otherwise third party sources might be more useful than the 2024 DMG were on the subject.

(And if anyone got through all that text; major congratulations to you. I spent far too many hours on it.)

And later addition: I did also read more recently that it is much harder for some to understand the calculations behind the stat blocks from looking at the stat blocks in the 2024 Monster Manual, as the calculations do not match what would be expected from similar gear and rules stated by the Player's Hand Book. It can be much harder to create monsters with a reasonable balance when the template examples feel like numbers are being arbitrarily assigned. 

 I appreciate your thoroughness! I think I've addressed many of your points in some of my recent comments if you're interested in looking at those. Were I to hazard a guess, I think people are put off by the different mode of explaining creature creation used in this edition vs. 5e. In 5e, the DMG aggregated numerical averages and put those in tables for DMs to reference. However, that data is misleading if the DM wasn't aware of what it represented (which many weren't). So, rather than put forth instructions that require certain know-how to use properly, the design team in this edition simply directs DMs to reference the source: existing stat blocks.

It comes down to the same advice but just in different formats. I think what throws people off the most with this edition is that now it is even more clear that ultimately the DM has to make these choices themselves based on their best judgment—something that was true in 5e but behind the scenes. My recommendation to new DMs is to look at monsters with Challenge Ratings near what they want their monster to have and use those monsters' stat blocks to decide on what numbers (hit points, AC, die values, number of dice, etc.) to give to their creations.

CR is still buried halfway down the stat block. I needs to be in the title with the Name / Subtitle / Alignment etc!

Quote from Intruder313 >>

CR is still buried halfway down the stat block. I needs to be in the title with the Name / Subtitle / Alignment etc!

 
CR is dead, long live XP Budgets. We're going back to 2nd Ed, baby!

Quote from theron >>

Quote from Solim >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from theron >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from MSLabo102 >>

They did not have ANY info on customization - They're actively trying to deter us from homebrewing. The spirit caused OGL fiasco is still there.

 
You made this exact same post on another article. It was dead wrong on that article; it is dead wrong here as well. On the off chance someone reads your post and mistakenly thinks it reflects reality, I am going to copy my response:

This is patently and demonstrably false. There’s an entire section on creating your own creatures in the DMG.  Additionally, there plenty of information in the new Monster Manual on Homebrewing, including recommended hitpoint values, proficiency bonuses.

 

 Could you kindly indicate where it is at, because if it is in the new DMG or MM for 2024 I would love to see it. Not being sarcastic I am honest to God hoping I just missed it. I cannot find anything that says any form of guideline aside from what the proficiency bonus of different CR is and that I can change type of damage dealt or add a handful of features, but nothing about building a new creature from the ground up or how armor class or damage should be at the different CRs. the DMG literally only has a section called "Minor Alterations" which is neat I guess but not at all what I need.

 

Those are the relevant sections - and together they do provide everything you need.  The Monster Manual provides recommended hitpoints; the minor alteration section of the DMG recommends using another monster of the same CR's ability scores; the Monster Manual provides the proficiency bonus. From that information, you can derive everything else you need to homebrew a monster of an appropriate CR - ability scores and proficiency bonus define skills, attacks, and saves; hitpoints govern hitpoints.  Everything else you can build around that--what the abilities do, what the powers are, etc. All of that requires something Wizards cannot really teach in a book--imagination--though, they try by explicitly recommending folks look at a bunch of monsters for inspiration as they learn how to design abilities.  

I do think the "minor alterations" section is a bit mislabeled and should simply be under the "creating a monster" heading.  The subheading is clearly is confusing you and I expect others.  After all, as you can stack multiple minor alterations, or make some of the more major substitutions it listed, to completely change a monster in major ways.  Still, at its core, it is a fine starter guide on how to create your own monster using an existing something as a template and then completely change it from there.

Now, might you want more information beyond that?  Sure.  I would not mind having a bit more information as well--though, I think Wizards knows full well they get diminishing returns as a lot of the "create a balanced monster" comes down to player skill in ways they cannot explain in a book. But saying there are no rules, and trying to push some kind of conspiracy, as the poster above did?  There is absolutely no merit to that claim. 

 

My guy, it is so easy to post links:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2024/dms-toolbox#CreatingaCreature

But looking it over, the others seem right. There's very little here about monster creation. It's mostly minor alterations to match whatever flavoring you want. But that's not 'creation'. I fail to see how you've addressed their concerns.

So what they have good stuff to have, and I get a basic table won't do well for things like HP, cause making a monster is complex. But they offer zero guidance. No ranges. No explanation of why determining an appropriate HP is complexes. No pitfalls to watch out for. It is disappointing. I don't need a book to tell me how to put make up on a zombie to make it an ancient zombie. I need a book to help me think like the designers.

 Thank you for summing it up far more effectively than I did. Much more eloquent, and yeah thinking like the designers is what we need. Or at least just a chart with a basic average list like we got in 2014. Flavor has always been free, having a whole section that tells me I can make something smarter is useless. I want to know how to create from the mechanical standpoint not the aesthetics.

 I can't really say anything as I don't have the new monster manual, but I have read the 2014 DMG & MM thoroughly, and through what I have seen in this discussion, then 2014 has more homebrew info they had a whole chart that worked super well and had more info.

Zechd, I included the answer to this question in my Feb. 15 posts. To summarize, the tables in the 2014 DMG were simply aggregations of info from the 2014 MM. Here, rather than provide those tables, which often misled DMs to over-rely on them, the 2024 DMG instead directs DMs to work off the sources of that data: the stat blocks in the 2024 MM. This method grounds DMs' work in real stat blocks that have the benefit of robust design and playtesting rather than in averages from those stat blocks. If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer those.