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

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually I was using the dog as a simple and clear example of my point. Don't get hung up on the dog.

But the dog is so cute…

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know. Never cared for any version of Pathfinder much.

Nice job dodging the point.

My guess is that if a different enough 6e came out and was successful, your precious 5e community would follow suit. Within five years, the 5e community would either opt to create far more different games than the 5e core (Tales of the Valiant 2e) or upgrade and follow the money. (A6e - Level Up 6th edition). That would leave the 5e community like the 3e or 4e: diehards who play despite lack of much new material.

WotC saved the 5e community by keeping 2024 mostly the same engine.

 

[Oofta]

Let's get things back on topic, shall we?

I am pretty sure I have only used Stone Golems a single time. They're one of those monsters that you can't really use until fairly late in the campaign, and once you do your players probably have a lot of powerful options to deal with it. the one time I did (I think in my Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign), they were kind of underwhelming. They don't do great damage, and Eidolons are a more interesting alternative. My party was pretty easily able to take on a good amount of them (I think there were 6? Alongside some Githyanki, too?)

However, I like most of the changes. Slightly higher AC is good. Stone should be tough to damage. More HP is good, since they're moving away from "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" as a concept (which I like). Combining Damage and Condition immunities into a single section is interesting. I'm not sure I like it.

Shape-shift as a new key word is interesting. I wonder what other monsters will use it.

Capitalizing Advantage is interesting, too.

Their Slam now deals 4d8 damage instead of 3d8, which I think is good.

Force bolt as a ranged attack is strange. I get that they're animated by (elemental) spirits and created by arcane spellcasters, so it's not completely unfounded, but I would prefer something like a Throw Boulder attack. Or something like an AOE Earth tremor that deals bludgeoning damage and knocks people prone.

And they probably should have explained the effects of Slow if they are going to have an action that causes it. No need to force the DM to open a new tab/book.

I think I missed this one with it being buried under all the other tangential stuff being thrown in here.

The stone golem has gotten a significant upgrade!

2014
View attachment 389156

2024
View attachment 389157

Interesting that low level monsters have relatively small or no changes, seemingly made mostly for ease of running them. But this stone golem is a really nice upgrade, which kind of follows what they were saying previously. That the biggest deficit in the 2014 MM was the effectiveness of high level monsters. Here's hoping they give more of the high level brutes a way of attacking at range, it's something I regularly add. At the level you're going to be facing these guys, flying around and making them a pincushion shouldn't be as viable an option as it has been.

I'm more interested to see the high level monsters than low level ones, the higher level the group the more creative I've had to be with tweaking monsters and making my own or going to 3PP.

On a side note, I really hope they include a "Build a monster" section in the MM. I have no issue with the DMG being about how to ... well ... DM, but a beefy section on the math behind CR and an abilities list would be great.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't used golems for a while, but I actually had a design in mind in which they shoot force beams like the giant construct in the end of Nausicaä, so this works for me.

I think to me it is weirder that they cast slow, but I think that is just one of those D&D legacy things that has been like that forever and no one remembers why.

I wish big strong brute creatures like this would have their melee attacks to know ar throw people around.

My version of the tarrasque would look something like...

 

[Kobold Avenger]

One thing I noticed reading the DMG is that some NPC monsters have Warrior added to their name, like "Veteran Warrior" and the new monster "Infantry Warrior"

 

[Oofta]

One thing I noticed reading the DMG is that some NPC monsters have Warrior added to their name, like "Veteran Warrior" and the new monster "Infantry Warrior"

Could mean we're going to get templates that can be added to any monster for customization. It would make the process of increasing CR of monsters easier for a lot of people.

You may think all the goblins are a pushover, but you just haven't goblin Nug Nug, The Destroyer

 

[Faolyn]

Then homebrew seems like a better fit for you. I always play homebrew. But I still enjoyed the story of D&D as depicted in decades of lore for which any attempt at coherence has officially been abandoned. And that makes me sad. That's literally all this is, so I'm unsure why my feelings about D&D's lore are getting do very much flack.

I usually make my own worlds, but I like to use the official settings as places to start from, if I want a setting that's similar enough to an official one. I like running horror and Ravenloft is a good D&D setting, so I don't necessarily feel the need to create a new horror setting--especially since an entire world of horror would be terribly unrealistic without a plot contrivance like the Dark Powers. I could create an entire planehopping setting for myself, but I like Sigil and the gate towns, and I like at least the concept behind many of the planes, so I might as well grab stuff from Planescape (along with the numerous other planar books I own).

Your feelings about D&D lore are getting flack because of the following:

D&D: Here's some lore.

You: They changed it too much in a way I don't like and now it's objectively bad.

Other people: There's nothing wrong with it / it's great / I love it.

You: No, it sucks. It's too different from what was going on before.

Other people: Sure there's plenty of continuity, if you think of XYZ first / Treat it like an alternate universe / You still have access to the other material to use in your game /Who cares? It's just lore. It's going to go out the window once the PCs start getting strong enough to make waves / They've made bigger, weirder, or dumber changes before and you didn't complain / metaplots get in the way anyway and a lot of them have been rejected by the fans for being dumb or badly done.

You: No, it's bad. Terrible. Those other lore changes aren't real lore changes because they don't outright change things.

Other people: Yeah they do. New lore alters the context of older lore.

You: It's clearly just a cash grab. They're being forced to write this for the younger audience and not what they really want to write, which is what I want to read, because they don't care about me as a fan anymore. Also, I don't actually play these settings; I just read them. Oh, and it's just my opinion.

Other people:

That's why.

And this basically happens every time something like new lore drops. Every time. And it's not even written in a ridiculous, over-the-top way like Snarf and their hatred of bards of elves (which also gets a facepalm from me, at the least).

I mean, there's literally nothing stopping you from continuing the meta-plot on your own. Write a supplement. Write a short story. Heck, just outline what you want to see and stick it up here on a new thread or on a blog or something for others to use as a springboard. Do something creative with your thoughts instead of just kvetching about it all the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I usually make my own worlds, but I like to use the official settings as places to start from, if I want a setting that's similar enough to an official one. I like running horror and Ravenloft is a good D&D setting, so I don't necessarily feel the need to create a new horror setting--especially since an entire world of horror would be terribly unrealistic without a plot contrivance like the Dark Powers. I could create an entire planehopping setting for myself, but I like Sigil and the gate towns, and I like at least the concept behind many of the planes, so I might as well grab stuff from Planescape (along with the numerous other planar books I own).

Your feelings about D&D lore are getting flack because of the following:



That's why.

And this basically happens every time something like new lore drops. Every time. And it's not even written in a ridiculous, over-the-top way like Snarf and their hatred of bards of elves (which also gets a facepalm from me, at the least).

I mean, there's literally nothing stopping you from continuing the meta-plot on your own. Write a supplement. Write a short story. Heck, just outline what you want to see and stick it up here on a new thread or on a blog or something for others to use as a springboard. Do something creative with your thoughts instead of just kvetching about it all the time.

Thanks for another take on why I'm wrong, but @Levistus's_Leviathan already covered how I'm making everyone around me have a worse time by my presence. I'm withdrawing from this thread.

 

[Faolyn]

Why does an Air Elemental's fist deal 2d8 damage, while an Awakened Tree's Fist does 3d6 damage, and a Clay Golem's does 2d10 and an Earth Elemental does 2d8?

You might say that their size plays into it, but why do elementals deal d8's and the golem a d10? You might argue the Tree and Treant do d6's because they are plants, until you see the Twig blight does d4's. And if it is size, why do the medium Mummy's deal 2d6 then 3d6 extra instead of 1d6? Same with the ghoul dealing 2d6? Maybe it is because of undead? But the Vampire does 1d8.

Or. Maybe. Trying to understand why they picked specific numbers for the damage dice is a little hit or miss, unless they named the attack after a weapon. Because their actual concern was reaching an average, and making sure the nature of the attack was thematic. At a certain point, the why for damage is... because.

Probably because if there was a standard damage die (due to size and/or creature type), people would say it was too boring and predictable, even if it was also simple to use.

Humanoids do d4 damage, Plants do d6 damage, Undead do d8, etc. 1-2 dice for Medium creatures, 2-3 dice for Large creatures, 3-4 dice for Huge, 4-5 dice of Gargantuan. Smaller or weaker creatures of a size category would do the lower number of dice and larger creatures would do the higher number. I think you could change it up even more by including riders to the damage, especially for supernatural foes. An elemental does some extra effect related to its element, a twig blight's target has a penalty to their next roll that turn because the blight briefly corrupted them.

Sadly, this would involve completely redoing the MM and might work better in some sort of "advanced OSR"-type game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I, like @Oofta, hope that the updated “Make Your Own Monster” table is in the new Monster Manual. I have gotten a lot of use out of the original 5e table and it’s absence from the new DMG is a huge problem if it isn’t going to be in the Monster Manual. Here’s to hoping WotC just made a smart change to where it’s put and didn’t just omit it entirely.