2025 Monster Manual Will Contain Over 85 New Monsters

Next year's new Monster Manual will include over 85 new monsters, a sizable increase over what was previously believed. In a D&D Beyond post made to celebrate the year end, Wizards of the Coast confirmed that the 2025 Monster Manual would contain 85 "brand new monsters." Considering that the new Monster Manual includes approximately 500 monsters, it's not a surprise that there are a significant amount of new monster statblocks, but this is further confirmation that nearly 20% of the statblocks will be brand new. A description of the Monster Manual also confirms that there will be over 300 new images in the book.

Many of these new statblocks will be to add either high CR or low CR variants of existing popular monsters, so that they can be used in a wider variety of scenarios. For instance, vampires will have several low CR variants (representing freshly turned vampires) along with a high CR vampire nightbringer. Also present in the game are arch-hags and a blob of annihilation, which are classified as titan-level creatures representing different kinds of monster types.

The new Monster Manual will be released on February 18th, 2025.

 

[Chaltab]

This was a 5e thread so I assumed we where discussing 5e.

Level up does have some limits on spells (which I appreciate, but it also offers routes to less limited versions too IIRC), but gives a lot more options and complexity in general. IME, complexity doesn't make PCs less powerful. That beings said, I agree with Morrus that LevelUp characters / game are basically on par with 2014/2024 WotC 5e. So from my standpoint, that really isn't a meaningful difference in PC power between the two 5e variants.

For me, limiting PC is a DM/Player discussion that is handled in session 0. Much easier us to set the ground rules for a game we know than take time to adjust to a new system.

Honestly if anything I've found most level up characters end up stronger than their 5E counterparts. I'm playing a Quickstepper Adept in a game and between having a parrying weapon, free use of the Expert Tumble Maneuver, and Adroit Defense my AC is often effectively 23 to 25 at level 8. I go through multiple combats as a dodge-tank that just doesn't get hit.

 

[Reynard]

I think that toughness of 5E monsters is less of an issue than how utterly boring most of them are. All monsters need a couple decent reactions/off round actions and alternate uses of their main abilities. Reactions are especially important for making sure combats are tactically interesting (by eliminating or greatly reducing opportunity attacks).

The "Monsters of the Multiverse" book was very disappointing on this front, but I did like what we saw in Fizban's, so it is possible they are making the monsters more interesting.

 

[dave2008]

I think that toughness of 5E monsters is less of an issue than how utterly boring most of them are. All monsters need a couple decent reactions/off round actions and alternate uses of their main abilities. Reactions are especially important for making sure combats are tactically interesting (by eliminating or greatly reducing opportunity attacks).

I disagree on some level. I think rank and file monsters are better if they are simple (aka boring). If I have a mob of orcs attacking my PCs I don't want to keep track of 8 monster reactions and that will just drag the fight out - making the fight boring, IME, even if the individual monsters are not. To me that was a big thing with 4e monster design. There was just to much going on some times that it could bog down encounters and make them slow and boring. 4e taught me to limit minor actions (aka bonus actions) and reactions to monsters that really need them.

So, the goblin chief or any boss / legendary monster should absolutely have interesting things to do. But most monsters, IMO should have one or two actions at most IMO. I can run a better game that way IME.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree on some level. I think rank and file monsters are better if they are simple (aka boring). If I have a mob of orcs attacking my PCs I don't want to keep track of 8 monster reactions and that will just drag the fight out - making the fight boring, IME, even if the individual monsters are not. To me that was a big thing with 4e monster design. There was just to much going on some times that it could bog down encounters and make them slow and boring. 4e taught me to limit minor actions (aka bonus actions) and reactions to monsters that really need them.

So, the goblin chief or any boss / legendary monster should absolutely have interesting things to do. But most monsters, IMO should have one or two actions at most IMO. I can run a better game that way IME.

I think more tactically interesting options for all monsters results in more tactically interesting combats. The way to keep rote fights from betting boring is to not have them. 75% of encounters in a D&D or Pathfinder module are completely unnecessary filler anyway.

 

[R_J_K75]

The way to keep rote fights from betting boring is to not have them. 75% of encounters in a D&D or Pathfinder module are completely unnecessary filler anyway.

Thats why when I write adventures now, because we only play on the average 2.5 to 3 hrs a session, I only plan 1-3 combat encounters. I'm currently running the 1st level adventure the Fouled Stream from the 2024 DMG. Theres 5 encounters. None of them seem cohesive from an ecology standpoint, other than saying they were "spawned", which to me is lazy, and most of them seem like filler. I might be wrong but iirc correctly the sample adventures in the new DMG were meant to be short single session games. We're going on our third session which may or may not be the last of this adventure. We tend to get sidetracked a bit so I'm sure a more disciplined group could knock this out in one session, but I feel that an encounter or two could have been omitted.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Thats why when I write adventures now, because we only play on the average 2.5 to 3 hrs a session, I only plan 1-3 combat encounters. I'm currently running the 1st level adventure the Fouled Stream from the 2024 DMG. Theres 5 encounters. None of them seem cohesive from an ecology standpoint, other than saying they were "spawned", which to me is lazy, and most of them seem like filler. I might be wrong but iirc correctly the sample adventures in the new DMG were meant to be short single session games. We're going on our third session which may or may not be the last of this adventure. We tend to get sidetracked a bit so I'm sure a more disciplined group could knock this out in one session, but I feel that an encounter or two could have been omitted.

Or just replace them with interactive encounters that aren't about combat, but about learning more about what's going on.

 

[R_J_K75]

Or just replaced interactive encounters that aren't about combat, but about learning more about what's going on.

Yeah, these "introductory" adventures leave a lot to be desired, and leave a lot of work for the DM to do. I'd have like to have seen a really good 5-page 1st level adventure than 5, 1-page adventures of varying levels. The fact that they didn't even include the creatures in the adventure in the book is pretty mind boggling considering the DMG came out 3 months before the MM will. Even more confusing is why they aren't releasing the new starter set until Oct 2025.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, these "introductory" adventures leave a lot to be desired, and leave a lot of work for the DM to do. I'd have like to have seen a really good 5-page 1st level adventure than 5, 1-page adventures of varying levels. The fact that they didn't even include the creatures in the adventure in the book is pretty mind boggling considering the DMG came out 3 months before the MM will. Even more confusing is why they aren't releasing the new starter set until Oct 2025.

My hope is that most new DMs just skip the adventures and go for Dyson's maps in the back and start creating their own short adventures.

 

[dave2008]

I think more tactically interesting options for all monsters results in more tactically interesting combats. The way to keep rote fights from betting boring is to not have them. 75% of encounters in a D&D or Pathfinder module are completely unnecessary filler anyway.

Everybody needs different things. I need simple stat blocks to run quickly and easily. That allows me to DM them creatively and to the tactical detail I need. The rules of the game, including improvisational rules in the DMG, are enough for me to fill in any blanks and make tactically interesting encounters. I not don't need detailed stat blocks to make an interesting encounter. I need the stat block to get out of the way.

Now for the 10-25% of monsters that are special, then sure. Give them thematic reactions and interesting actions and bonus actions. Any more than that is a burden to me.

That being said, I completely respect that you want something different. Ideally a monster book gives you both.

 

[dave2008]

75% of encounters in a D&D or Pathfinder module are completely unnecessary filler anyway.

That may be true (IDK as I don't use published adventures), but that has little to do with monster design IMO.