D&D (2024) Monster Manual 2025 Stat Block Compilation

This thread contains a compilation of the Monster Manual 2025 stat blocks which have been previewed publicly so far.

 

[ezo]

An that was really bad. It made the game/narration unreliable.

I can't see how it would be really bad? It is literally a reflection of their skill in combat, just like having higher HP. Does having higher HP make the game/narration unreliable for you, too? (I know some people it does...).

I prefer systems that have "AC bumps" based on level -- wihether it is a variable mechanic like in d20 SW or a simple mechanic like half level.

 

[ezo]

Increases to defensive capability are relatively limited and usually based on reactions like the Shield spell or Defensive Duelist

Most often directly reflected in the HP bloat 5E suffers from.

 

[Minigiant]

An that was really bad. It made the game/narration unreliable.

Not really

AC has always been your base passive defense. Armor and base Agility.
HP has always been your variable active and consummable defense. Toughness, Stamina, Luck, Blessing.

+ % of Level to AC just means your base floor of defense increases with level just like you base offense (to hit). You base reaction time, parrying ability, base hardness.

Monsters get high AC with CR because we say stronger monsters and stronger versions of monsters are faster or have harder skin (Dex or natural armor)

The only reason why we don't do this for PCs is because D&D defaults PCs to slow squishy humaniods at level 1 but goes ERROR ERROR when describing a high level warriors that in other media are described with rock hard skin or amazing base parrying and dodging ability.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not really

Really.

AC has always been your base passive defense. Armor and base Agility.
HP has always been your variable active and consummable defense. Toughness, Stamina, Luck, Blessing.

Does not matter.

+ % of Level to AC just means your base floor of defense increases with level just like you base offense (to hit). You base reaction time, parrying ability, base hardness.

Does not help for narration. If you want that, better use AC as damage reduction and have a defense score.

For attacks it already works that way: skill = attack bonus.
Weapon and stats tells us which damage die and a base modifier. So those things are seperate in the Player's head.

AC does too much at the same time. People have accepted that it is a flat number to beat. Also adding a level based score was bad. And it was even worse that in 4e, armor did not play any role in monster defense calculation.

Monsters get high AC with CR because we say stronger monsters and stronger versions of monsters are faster or have harder skin (Dex or natural armor)

You can say that. You can also spell that out in the monster description. A dragon has very hard scales. The DM can describe that.

The only reason why we don't do this for PCs is because D&D defaults PCs to slow squishy humaniods at level 1 but goes ERROR ERROR when describing a high level warriors that in other media are described with rock hard skin or amazing base parrying and dodging ability.

As I explained above, this is how D&D has worked for a long time.

Good luck changing expectations. Or switching to an AC as DR with defense score determined with 10+prof bonus+dex.

I think this would also work fine enough.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I can't see how it would be really bad? It is literally a reflection of their skill in combat, just like having higher HP. Does having higher HP make the game/narration unreliable for you, too? (I know some people it does...).

I would be more happy if monster HP were lower and PC damage was lower.
Some players are raising their eyebrows when 40 damage won't kill an enemy wizard at level 3 or so.

I prefer systems that have "AC bumps" based on level -- wihether it is a variable mechanic like in d20 SW or a simple mechanic like half level.

If it uses AC as DR and a defense score determined by level and dex, I agree.

 

[ezo]

I would be more happy if monster HP were lower and PC damage was lower.
Some players are raising their eyebrows when 40 damage won't kill an enemy wozard at level 3 or so.

If it uses AC as DR and a defense score determined by level and dex, I agree.

All is as it should be IMNSHO.

 

[Zaukrie]

Yes. That is not the point.

Imagine a monster that attacks with a hammer. And then you say it deals piercing damage.

Why would I do that?

 

[Zaukrie]

An that was really bad. It made the game/narration unreliable.

Strong disagree. It reflected an ability to avoid hit point loss through experience. You seem to have a strong... There is a right way feeling to your posts. We disagree. Nothing more or less

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All is as it should be IMNSHO.

A simple idea could be just having AC = 8 + prof bonus +dex. Same restrictions for light and heavy armor as usual. For medium armor, add only half dex bonus rounded down (instead of max +2).
Then use AC from Armor as DR.
Shields add to defense score.


So at level 1 and dex 14 is:
leather armor and shield:
AC = 8 + 2 (pb) + 2 (dex) +2 shield = 14
DR = 1

Chain shirt and shield is:
AC = 8 + 2 (pb) + 1(dex) + 2 (shield) = 13
DR = 3

Chain mail and shield is:
AC = 8 + 2 (pb) + 2 (shield) = 12
DR = 6

Lets see how weapons do:

Modication for TWF: without fighting style you add your stat modifier to damage instead of attack bonus.

Dagger: 1d4+3 damage. Not so good vs heavy armor. Sounds good. A rogue will do damage with sneak attack.

TWF: the off hand attack does not hit as well, but it still deals 1d4+3 damage on a hit.

And so on. Should work.

Against monsters that deal 50 damage on a hit?
At higher level, prof bonus will be +6. So you still have extra +4 AC over level 1.

Full plate +2 would be +10 AC. So enemies have a 30% higher chance to hir you. But you receive 20% less damage.

1.3*0.8=1.04
So you don't receive much more damage overall. Could actually work.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Strong disagree. It reflected an ability to avoid hit point loss through experience. You seem to have a strong... There is a right way feeling to your posts. We disagree. Nothing more or less

I hate that. Sorry. It was a bad exoetience in 4e for us.