Talk:5e Creature Design Guide

Rule #1, read the creature-making guide in the DMG! Marasmusine (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2016 (MDT)

Rule #2, read the MM to see if you could use another creature's statistics to represent your creature or use those stats with slight modifications. Not everything needs a whole new stat block. For example, the panther statistics could be used to represent a jaguar or a puma. SirSprinkles (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2016 (MDT)

Given rule 2, should we introduce a "Creatures Reskinned" page, similar to 5e Races Reimagined? This would allow people to share inspiration for what can be done with the monsters with very minor effort. --Kydo (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2016 (MDT)

That sounds like a good idea, but should that page just include different creatures with the same statistics or different lore for (essentially) the same creatures, like minotaurs being pirates or something similar, or both? SirSprinkles (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2016 (MDT)

Created. SirSprinkles (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2016 (MDT)

Other Guidelines

By this point, it's pretty much common knowledge throughout the hobby community that the monster design guidelines in the DMG are way off in regards to actually making monsters in-game. The writer of Blog of Holding has dome some extremely thorough statistical analysis of the actual monsters in the game's publications and has made much more accurate guidelines based on that analysis. That can be found here. I would like to include his work as part of the guidelines on this page. --Kydo (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2018 (MST)

Guy has me under the impression the DMG is fine. Me watchlist is lighting up lately but I’ll try to read this guideline within the next couple days. Maybe there are things to incorporate and just reference the Blog of Holding. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2018 (MST)

Be bold! As a community guideline this information would be useful. I would add it as a variant to the MM creature guidelines. If just adding a reference (like BSFM said) would cover this base, then that's already enough. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2018 (MST)

If it were transcribed would permission be needed? ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2018 (MST)

Yes of course, since this is intellectual property of the author. If he wants to publish it under the GNU FDL then we need permission. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2018 (MST)

I've read this guideline, mostly, and I really enjoy it. It is backed by statiscal data which is relatively easy to read. It is all based on the Monster Manual (or Morde's Tome of Foes) so the information isn't biased or an opinion for the most part. I think a couple areas the author says they think something is fair or a good idea but I find this to be leaving margin of error or baiting others for input. Great find! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2018 (MST)

Here's an example of something I did. Not sure what others have in mind and this was my first idea. Open to critique. thanks. Link: User:BigShotFancyMan/MyCreature (5e Creature) ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2018 (MST)

It's been a while since I did it, but when I took a few of the many monsters I've created using the DMG guidance and put them through the metric provided by the Blog of Holding, my creations almost always in line with the BoH's guidance as much as the DMG's guidance. I'm just shooting from the hip, but I think the DMG's convoluted way of doing it will give you a more precise CR than the BoH's if you do them both correctly. The BoH method seems to let you easily slip into CRs that are a little too high or a little too low, just because it's less precise with things like damage and hit points. That said, the BoH's way of doing it (especially the business card) is MUCH faster, and is ideal for improvising statistics at the table. The BoH's list also gives a better idea of what CRs should look like than the similar-looking list in the DMG. BoH's method is also probably easier for someone to understand if they're new to the process. - Guy 12:52, 7 December 2019 (MST)

"convoluted", I like that word for their way. Their way just surprises me as something that is consistent.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   09:35, 9 December 2019 (MST)

THEESE GUIDLINES ARE TERRIBLE !!!!

Would you care to elaborate? --SwankyPants (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2021 (MST)

OK. I will explain: They are saying “please follow these guidlines” then i go to see the guidlines and find a page with a link to this page with these guidlines that you must follow. Then i try to read the 5 million words where you actually only need to read half of them. Lets sat that i get through the reading then i find out that i must copy some of it wich is of course made in the midlle of everything. Now er are just thinking that i actually have done this using about two days then i must delete some of the teet i have copyed. If i then rewrite the stuff i deleted in the right way then i find out that there is a link that i must have that i deleted so i go back to this and find the link and copys it. Then i have used 3 days to create it even though that i could just use pages to create it using 15 minutes.
Thats why —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaga (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Alright, so the issue is that there’s too many words? I understand it could be a bit heavy, but it’s better to be comprehensive than to be minimal with this sort of thing. I’ll give you another hypothetical situation, then. Let’s say you’re new to making monsters, and are pretty unfamiliar with the inner workings of the game or the wiki. If every explanation is shortened to a sentence or less, a lot can be lost in translation, and you may end up putting things in the wrong place(flavor text in features, actions in the description, format bits that don’t exist, etc). Regardless, this one isn’t super wordy anyways, and you can easily skip to the parts you need to see. Also, what “pages” are you talking about? --SwankyPants (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2021 (MST)