Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Didn't they keep telling us this isn't an edition change? Have they gone back on that yet?
Yes I'm still bitter about it.
D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Yes I'm still bitter about it.
abirdcall
(she/her)
I love the redesigns in general.
They will greatly reduce the cognitive load on the DM (incl. through easier readability) which will increase the complexity of encounters and the game in general. Or at the very least, speed things up.
I guarantee there are DMs out there that had their Mage NPC attack with the dagger because 'why would it be in the stat-block if they weren't going to do it.' More common, I'm sure many DMs just had them use Firebolt because it was easier for them than doing all the spells.
I'm not even really mad about creatures having both melee and ranged attacks. The Stone Golem is a little weird because it isn't how I think of them but it should actually be fine in play. This is because if players engage it in melee it will have disadvantage to attack PCs who are hanging back at range which is useful. Esp. so for Barbarians who want to be taking that bludgeoning damage instead of the force damage.
One thing I was hoping to see is more interaction with the new PC abilities to push around monsters and knock them prone and such. I imagine that is part of why we are seeing these ranged abilities but that isn't fully satisfying. I would have liked to see something like a Stone Golem be able to resist prone and being pushed around in some way.
They will greatly reduce the cognitive load on the DM (incl. through easier readability) which will increase the complexity of encounters and the game in general. Or at the very least, speed things up.
I guarantee there are DMs out there that had their Mage NPC attack with the dagger because 'why would it be in the stat-block if they weren't going to do it.' More common, I'm sure many DMs just had them use Firebolt because it was easier for them than doing all the spells.
I'm not even really mad about creatures having both melee and ranged attacks. The Stone Golem is a little weird because it isn't how I think of them but it should actually be fine in play. This is because if players engage it in melee it will have disadvantage to attack PCs who are hanging back at range which is useful. Esp. so for Barbarians who want to be taking that bludgeoning damage instead of the force damage.
One thing I was hoping to see is more interaction with the new PC abilities to push around monsters and knock them prone and such. I imagine that is part of why we are seeing these ranged abilities but that isn't fully satisfying. I would have liked to see something like a Stone Golem be able to resist prone and being pushed around in some way.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Make a new goblin if it's so important your new fey creature have the same name.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Then give those additional effects. Don't just merge all of it into a grey mush you can pretend is whatever you like.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Higher level spell. Maybe not the best choice for goblins.
abirdcall
(she/her)
One thing I am hoping to see is more interaction with damage types as the CR rises.
Monsters should be vulnerable to more things.
Maybe the Stone Golem is an exception because they should be tough, and I think the adamantine weakness got moved to the weapon itself which is nice for stat block brevity.
Monsters should be vulnerable to more things.
Maybe the Stone Golem is an exception because they should be tough, and I think the adamantine weakness got moved to the weapon itself which is nice for stat block brevity.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
Combat in D&D is abstract enough that it makes sense and reduces mental overhead.
dave2008
Legend
- The DM can innovate on what that mechanic means in the setting. They can in fact innovate on every attack if they want.
- The designer has more space to innovate more interesting abilities.
Point #1 is what younger DMs seem to be doing.
Point #2 is what WotC designers seem to be doing. The green dragon statblock is more interesting and flavorful as a whole now than 2024. Now, there is still a lot of space available for the dragon block to have both, and I would, but it is better than the 2014 version IMO.
I dunno; I agree it could be ‘change for change’s sake’, but while it does go against established lore, I see some opportunities in it.
First, it creates a clearer narrative distinction between monster humanoid species. It’s good to have something to strongly distinguish goblins from kobolds, from orcs, and from gnolls. In AD&D, they were all just different species of monsters to kill because they were evil. Since then, each has gained stronger distinctive backstory.
And perhaps it’s just because I had Ridley Scott’s Legend on recently, butI can see some real narrative/story building inspiration from goblins as (dark) fey.
I’d look to tie fey goblinoids to Wolfgang Baur’s shadow fey.
To be more specific, I’m looking for narratives for starting my 12-yr old son’s first adventure. And I’m thinking about the sunless citadel. This fey tie seems a great way to tie together the evil druid, the goblins, and the twig blights.
Throwing in a lot of color about a shadowy blight upon the land, it seems far easier to justify an adventure into the sunless citadel, and to justify battling against the goblins as dangerous enemies presenting a serious threat to local civilization. It also clearly distinguishes them from the less dangerous/threatening kobolds of that adventure.
(And we are free to ignore any monster changes which do not inspire us.)
Last edited:
dave2008
Legend
I mean I can still use any 2014 monster, PC, or previous adventure with 2024 versions. Doesn't feel like an edition change to me. Definitely note like 2e-3e-4e-5e.
