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

[Crimson Longinus]

You do not really have to merge Bite and Claw into Rend to have interesting abilities in addition to them. What it does is save some page space, not enable actions.

You can argue that it saved them some space they could fill with a different ability, but inherently you do not need to remove Bite and Claw to make interesting creatures. I'd prefer they did both.

I think for simple basic foes like lions and such, having separate bite/claw is pretty pointless; they both do just some normal damage, there is no real difference, so combining them allows just to narrate what seems more appropriate for the situation.

However, I think that for big solo foes such as dragons, there should be a difference. (Not that there was an interesting one before.) Look at the new dragon art, their tails are super long, they should have more reach, and they should be able to knock people around with their tail slaps. Tyrannosaurus grapples people with it's bite, but why cannot a dragon which is as big or even larger do the same?

They added special effects to PC attacks via masteries. I think monsters could use some of the same. I get that it is unwieldy for monsters that appear in large numbers, but for more elite ones should have something like this. A human-sized PC can push and topple people with their meagre weapon, but an ogre or giant cannot? It's just boring and weird.

 

[dave2008]

I think for simple basic foes like lions and such, having separate bite/claw is pretty pointless; they both do just some normal damage, there is no real difference, so combining them allows just to narrate what seems more appropriate for the situation.

However, I think that for big solo foes such as dragons, there should be a difference. (Not that there was an interesting one before.) Look at the new dragon art, their tails are super long, they should have more reach, and they should be able to knock people around with their tail slaps. Tyrannosaurus grapples people with it's bite, but why cannot a dragon which is as big or even larger do the same?

They added special effects to PC attacks via masteries. I think monsters could use some of the same. I get that it is unwieldy for monsters that appear in large numbers, but for more elite ones should have something like this. A human-sized PC can push and topple people with their meagre weapon, but an ogre or giant cannot? It's just boring and weird.

I agree. I tried various ideas of using the "rend" for dragons. I even posted them over in the 2025 Ancient Green Dragon thread, but ultimately it didn't improve the dragon and provide interesting features to the different attacks in a way that was less complex, IMO, than giving it separate bite, claw, tail, etc. attacks. I do think the dragon is improved from 2014, but losing the claw, bite, tail, and wing attacks didn't help it. If they had left those in and given the claw, bite, and tail effects (which I do: prone/push, grapple, and daze or stun respectively for my dragons) they would have been more improved IMO. If you look at the 2025 preview the dragon could easily have added those and still been quite a bit less than a page.

 

[Bae'zel]

So I don’t mind simplified stat blocks as long as the creatures have compelling “character” or fluff. I tend to run monsters, especially large or epic ones, with some extra “oomph” that might make rules lawyers grit their teeth.

This post from a decade ago (from the Dungeon World forums) highlights what I think is important to consider when presenting memorable monsters as more than a single HP entity on a battlefield:

The party is riding back into town … The moon goes out for a second, they feel the wind shift, and then something lands on city hall with a massive crack. They have a few seconds to blink before they see a serpentine head snake down and shred a guardsman in mail in a single hit ... They kick up the speed and head towards town. I plop down paper, and quickly draw some snaking streets, sketch out some boxy houses, plop down a big die to represent the dragon. As they’re about to walk in, I pick up a handful of red tokens, and describe the inhalation they feel from this far, and the words in dragon-speech, and basically drop a pile of red on town and explain it’s on fire and how the flames themselves are being shaped and commanded by the dragon.

Their horses freak. They manage to get off (a few taking some damage from a panicked horse running and one being hit by a branch). They start advancing through this hellish landscape, where an inconsistent shadow would swoop down and split someone in half, and people burning to death beg for mercy and help while holding swaddled children turning to ash in their arms.

The group starts to help the townsfolk … when a building shatters with the landing of a 4-5 ton creature, and it opens up its pipes, it’s golden eyes burning and it’s metal hide resonates with a roar (terrifying).

Their charges scatter, the PC’s have to defy their own terror to attack the thing. They do negligible damage … or those that DO anything, and realize that the only person who has a shot at killing this is the armor-penetrating wizard spells. Unfortunately, so does the dragon.

What ensues is horrific. …

The party breaks and runs. The dragon laughs and settles to ash the village and eat any survivors.
…
The moral of the story is it’s not about the hitpoints. In my 4e game the party had a dozen dragon kills under their belt. The dragons were mechanically threatening, they were tricksy, they were tactical, but their claws and teeth didn’t do damage, they did numbers. After this session they explained that they had never been so scared of a monster.

You could argue that RAW a decently levelled party could deal with most creatures easily with the right gamist tactics .. all of that goes out of the window when the monster changes the battlefield, fills it with screaming NPCs, destroyed terrain, hazardous obstacles and things that are not just tossing damage dice.

When a dragon hits a character with a massive wing or tail, rules be damned, that character gets flung about. The tail shatters a tree, causing PCs to have to take saving throws to dodge falling debris. Animals panic, the air turns vile etc

I despise how dragons and other mythical creatures have been somewhat trivialized. Especially vampires (you can imagine how pleased that I am about the upcoming Nosferatu movie). These things should scare the denizens of these settings. The players know that a troll is manageable with fire, but their characters likely experienced nightmare tales about these creatures devouring families in the night.

 

[dave2008]

I just did a quick analysis of the 2014 & 2024 CR 10 Stone Golem using the 2014 DMG guidelines.

2014
The CR calculated via the DMG gives you: CR 12

2024
The CR calculated via the DMG gives you: CR 13

So they made an OP level 10 monster even more dangerous in 2024. I am in favor of this, but I honestly thought the Stone Golem is one of those that would stay the same or possibly be nerfed a little.

 

[dave2008]

So I don’t mind simplified stat blocks as long as the creatures have compelling “character” or fluff. I tend to run monsters, especially large or epic ones, with some extra “oomph” that might make rules lawyers grit their teeth.

This post from a decade ago (from the Dungeon World forums) highlights what I think is important to consider when presenting memorable monsters as more than a single HP entity on a battlefield:


You could argue that RAW a decently levelled party could deal with most creatures easily with the right gamist tactics .. all of that goes out of the window when the monster changes the battlefield, fills it with screaming NPCs, destroyed terrain, hazardous obstacles and things that are not just tossing damage dice.

When a dragon hits a character with a massive wing or tail, rules be damned, that character gets flung about. The tail shatters a tree, causing PCs to have to take saving throws to dodge falling debris. Animals panic, the air turns vile etc

I despise how dragons and other mythical creatures have been somewhat trivialized. Especially vampires (you can imagine how pleased that I am about the upcoming Nosferatu movie). These things should scare the denizens of these settings. The players know that a troll is manageable with fire, but their characters likely experienced nightmare tales about these creatures devouring families in the night.

While I agree, you can do all of that and have claw and bite attacks that do interesting things. It is not one or the other. Not everyone is as skilled as the DM in your example. Now, if the new MM gives advice on improvising rend attacks to feel like tails, claws, bites or whatever, that would be great. However, I think seeding some RP ideas right in the statblock is not a bad thing. Particularly in your big boss type monsters.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't see the lore of the worlds of D&D as presented from 1e or before to a few years ago (when WotC announced they no longer care about it as anything but an idea mine) as any different conceptually from a franchise like Star Wars or Star Trek

Given how much really foul garbage Star Wars and Star Trek lore generates on the internet, I think you have just explained why it is best avoided.

 

[Bae'zel]

Given how much really foul garbage Star Wars and Star Trek lore generates on the internet, I think you have just explained why it is best avoided.

There’s always a fuss when established RPGs alter lore. Every other day on the Baldur’s Gate 3 subreddit, there was a complaint about how Larian Studios took liberties.

The difference here is that outside of media entertainment (video games, movies, books, etc) in make believe RPGs played from the comfort of your own homes, official lore changes don’t really matter as much.

Count Vlad Drakov in Falkovnia is still a dude in my Ravenloft campaign. My friends and I back in the 2000s ignored the new “lore” from the Star Wars Prequels and only used stuff from the Expanded Universe for our campaign.

And you can still buy older D&D books, even if just digital copies. So that version of Faerun from the mid 90s can still be used and referenced if you want to.

So I really don’t take “official” lore changes all that seriously in the TTRPG hobby. If a movie, comic, video game or tv show does major changes that I find inexcusable, I just won’t consume that media.

Not to dismiss other people’s feelings, but I simply cannot relate. Why stick to modern lore changes if you don’t like them? Change them! The Pinkertons won’t smash down your door.

 

[mamba]

I think for simple basic foes like lions and such, having separate bite/claw is pretty pointless […]

However, I think that for big solo foes such as dragons, there should be a difference.

agreed, that is what I said too

 

[Bae'zel]

agreed, that is what I said too

I always feel that I have to make up my own, because even just "claw / claw / bite" always felt... MEH to me. Old School Essentials and Mork Borg let me kind of improvise my own stuff but still.

I'm definitely open to some other options. Read a post (maybe from here? Or on Reddit?) where someone used 3 different stat blocks to make up the various major "parts" of a huge monster. Defeat one part, those attacks are neutralized. Stuff like that's appealing to me, even if it is a bit video-gamey. As long as it is easy to manage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given how much really foul garbage Star Wars and Star Trek lore generates on the internet, I think you have just explained why it is best avoided.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to argue against lore?