D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)

[mamba]

Again, there is a subtraction of flavor in favor of simplicity.

That seems to be the main change in all of these stat blocks, simplification (at the cost of flavor) and some tweaks. To a degree that helps hitting the CR more accurately / predictably and it certainly makes the creature easier to run, I do not like the removal of flavor though, starting with having a generic Rend vs Bite & Claw attacks

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's fair, I guess I am more inclined to that tie into RL folklore more. I welcomed this change. Though what I really want is for monsters to be able to have multiple types.

I think bringing monsters more in line with the original folklore makes D&D more accessible to new players, particularly from the territories where the folklore originates. It ties into the effort to be more culturally sensitive really.

 

[the Jester]

That's fair, I guess I am more inclined to that tie into RL folklore more. I welcomed this change. Though what I really want is for monsters to be able to have multiple types.

I am fine with monsters being multiple types, or having the same stat block representing multiple monsters via changing the Type line only- I have will-o-wisps as both Undead and Fey, for instance. I'd be fine with a simple paragraph in the MM suggesting that goblinoids (again, f'rex) could be either Humanoid or Fey, with a "Fey Ancestry" trait for the goblins that are Fey and without it for those that are Humanoids.

I really dislike changes that invalidate decades of gameplay, though. If a monster that was always susceptible to charm person suddenly isn't, what if your campaign had seen major events played out where using charm person on that monster was a major plot point? If you aren't going to restart your game because of a new ruleset or edition- and I'll die on the hill that an edition change shouldn't force a reset- then edition changes should be made with that sort of situation in mind and changes to monsters should be made judiciously. You can update mechanics and change stat blocks in ways that don't run that risk.

 

[dave2008]

I do not like the removal of flavor though, starting with having a generic Rend vs Bite & Claw attacks

While I generally agree, I am changing on this a bit. From my discussion with younger DMS (I'm 51), they feel the generic rend (or similar) allows them to flavor the attack however they want. I am trying to embrace that flexible mindset some.

 

[dave2008]

I really dislike changes that invalidate decades of gameplay, though. If a monster that was always susceptible to charm person suddenly isn't, what if your campaign had seen major events played out where using charm person on that monster was a major plot point? If you aren't going to restart your game because of a new ruleset or edition- and I'll die on the hill that an edition change shouldn't force a reset- then edition changes should be made with that sort of situation in mind and changes to monsters should be made judiciously. You can update mechanics and change stat blocks in ways that don't run that risk.

For me that is such a non-issue. We have a game that has spanned decades and sometimes we adopt new rules and sometimes we don't. We decide as a group and move on. If you don't like goblinoids being fey in your campaign, then don't run them that way! So simple.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While I generally agree, I am changing on this a bit. From my discussion with younger DMS (I'm 51), they feel the generic rend (or similar) allows them to flavor the attack however they want. I am trying to embrace that flexible mindset some.

I understand your position, but I just can't do it. I don't like re-flavoring when applying some effort can yield a better-fitting mechanic. Encouraging that mindset in D&D just moves me further away from it.

 

[dave2008]

The stone golem has gotten a significant upgrade!

2014

2024

 

[dave2008]

I understand your position, but I just can't do it. I don't like re-flavoring when applying some effort can yield a better-fitting mechanic. Encouraging that mindset in D&D just moves me further away from it.

I can't do it completely myself, but I am all for encouraging that mindset in D&D. Flexibility in game design and play is what makes D&D great IMO. It is just hard for old-times like me!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can't do it completely myself, but I am all for encouraging that mindset in D&D. Flexibility in game design and play is what makes D&D great IMO. It is just hard for old-times like me!

That kind of flexibility IMO discourages innovation. Can't really be in favor or that personally.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The bugbear lost the Brute trait cause it was just words to say why it's attack did more damage, when they can just make the bugbear do more damage.