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.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Thanks for ruining what was a very interesting thread with the 1000th argument over how "bad" 4e was, gang!

 

[ezo]

Actually 2014 rarely did more than state "natural armor" and then leave up to the DM to run back the AC calculation to figure out where the AC came from. So... this Kuo-tao is the exact same. IT has an AC of 13 with a dex of +0. It either has natural armor or leather armor. Describe it either way and it works.

Stating natural armor was better than what they do now... nothing.

And they actually always did enough to explain the AC as far as I can recall. I'm not familiar with every monster WoTC publishes, of course...

But again, with this Kuo-toa, we have AC 13. How? Does that include the shield? There is no gear listed so is it natural armor or something else? I know there DEX mod is 0, and they don't list any special feature like adding WIS or CON to AC.

I know I can describe it "either way" but it creates ambiguity which the old way didn't, so why change it and possibly make things more confusing for new DMs?

Consider this scenario: I am a new DM and I have a group of kuo-toa near a cave entrance "on guard". A couple are watching, with spear and shield wielded. Others are sitting or lying around without their "gear" (which was can't call gear because it isn't listed as gear...). The PCs win initiative, rush them and one kuo-toa without his shield is attacked.

According to the stat block, it is AC 13---even without the shield. Right? The "sticky shield" feature doesn't specify it grants +2 to AC, there is no gear listed (unlike other stat blocks) so I can't assume the sticky shield is gear that needs to be equipped, etc. or functions like a normal shield in bumping AC by +2.

As I said before, is "AC 13 (natural armor, shield)" that hard to put in the stat block? No. And that tells the DM that without a shield the kuo-toa is AC 11. Since there is no DEX mod and no other AC influencing feature, I know the natural armor gives them AC 11. I can describe that natural armor however I want, but WotC could have been even more specific if they had wanted. But now I know what the numbers are and where they come from, as where simply AC 13 leaves some ambiguity and is not a necessary or even good change IMO.

Or look at the Skeleton stablocks. One of them has just their Dex mod, the other three have some sort of armor enhancement... but would you be able to tell as a player? The Skeleton Warhorse and the Skeleton have the exact same AC, the only way I can tell one of them has some sort of different armor is that I can see their Dex score. But as a player I don't have access to the AC, the Dex score, any special abilities... so I just would be forced to go off the die rolls

Yeah, the Skeleton statblocks are even worse offenders! Just ridiculous!!

Skeleton
AC 13, DEX mod +3, yet it has the same equipment it had in life... so I guess none of them wear any armor? They don't list any under gear, so I guess not.

Warhorse Skeleton
AC 13, DEX mod +1, so 2 points of AC are what? Natural armor? The "text" says they wear scraps of barding... so is that the extra 2 points? Or is the barding 1 point and 1 point of natural armor? I have no way of knowing as DM or player. They have no "gear" listed (which they SHOULD! if the barding helps their AC--it is armor then), so I guess whatever scraps of barding they have it isn't "armor"...?

Minotaur Skeleton
AC 12, DEX mod +0, so again 2 points. Natural armor I guess. No armor of any sort in the fluff text, no "gear" listed. Oh, wait, the fluff text mentions them using battleaxes like regular minotaurs. Makes sense. But their ACTIONS don't... just the slam attack. WTF? In the 2014 it states Battleaxe and does better damage than the "slam" in 2024...

Ok... so far I have no armor, "barding" maybe for some armor (or might be natural armor), and then I guess natural armor.

Finally, the Flaming Skeleon:
AC 15, DEX mod +2, so now 3 points of unaccounted for protection. I suppose we'll have to assume natural armor again...

But of course, none of this makes sense. Skeletons get no natural armor, the warhorse might, the minotaur seems to, and so does the flaming skeleton. They are all just skeletal creatures, wouldn't their natural armor be the same? Seems like +0, +1 (maybe), +2, and +3, respectively. Smacks of being arbitrary and without justification.

Now, you change all these to the following and there shouldn't be any confusion if someone knows how ACs work in the normal scope of the game:

Kuo-toa: AC 13 (natural armor AC 11, shield)
Skeleton: AC 13 (no armor)
Warhorse Skeleton: AC 13 (barding scraps AC 12)
Minotaur Skeleton: AC 12 (natural armor AC 12)
Flaming Skeleton: AC 15 (natural armor AC 13)

You don't even have to include the AC granted by the natural armor, but why not?

 

[Rumtintin]

Ah, the smell of toxicity in the morning, how surprising

 

[Tormyr]

I do wish they had kept in the explanations for when armor was more than just the dex bonus. It makes it easier to make modifications and see how magic interacts. Using a two-handed weapon? Need to doff the shield. Does heat metal work? Check if it is using metal armor or a metal weapon.

But the thing that really stood out is the Gold Dragon's Banish Legendary Action. When the target comes back, they reappear in an unoccupied space of the dragon's choice within 120 feet of the dragon. The dragon is going to be singing, "It's raining adventurers. Hallelujah!"

An extra 42 damage each round plus separating the party and potentially dumping adventurers off cliffs could be highly destructive above their CR. I'm surprised it did not have the creature reappear as close to the departure point as possible.

 

[abirdcall]

I do wish they had kept in the explanations for when armor was more than just the dex bonus. It makes it easier to make modifications and see how magic interacts. Using a two-handed weapon? Need to doff the shield. Does heat metal work? Check if it is using metal armor or a metal weapon.

But the thing that really stood out is the Gold Dragon's Banish Legendary Action. When the target comes back, they reappear in an unoccupied space of the dragon's choice within 120 feet of the dragon. The dragon is going to be singing, "It's raining adventurers. Hallelujah!"

The most dangerous thing is that the 120ft only requires line of sight and not line of effect.

So the gold dragon can dump them in solid jails with a window. A particularly well planned and cautious one (which would be all ancient dragons) could have anti-magic fields activated when a PC enters the cell so they can't magic their way out.

 

[ezo]

This is an example of simple changes to the layout I would find more helpful personally: (original vs. modified)

CR, along with XP value and Proficiency are more prominent.
AC includes how the AC is determined.
Gear is added to include the worn barding scraps, which provide AC 12 + DEX. This is clearer and would allow a PC to equip their own horse with the barding scraps to improve their horse's AC if they wanted.

Same exact footprint in the book.

Some people might find it more "crowded" than the new layout, which is fine, but I think it is more useful.

 

[Umbran]

Ah, the smell of toxicity in the morning, how surprising

Mod note:
Using the laughing emoji to mock several posts, followed by a snide, content free jab at others was probably not a really great choice for an introduction to the boards. Not exactly a good way to say you are someone folks will want to engage with.

Next time, please come with something more than threadcrapping. Thanks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is an example of simple changes to the layout I would find more helpful personally: (original vs. modified)
View attachment 393532 View attachment 393531

CR, along with XP value and Proficiency are more prominent.
AC includes how the AC is determined.
Gear is added to include the worn barding scraps, which provide AC 12 + DEX. This is clearer and would allow a PC to equip their own horse with the barding scraps to improve their horse's AC if they wanted.

Same exact footprint in the book.

Some people might find it more "crowded" than the new layout, which is fine, but I think it is more useful.

I like your layout.

 

[ezo]

I like your layout.

Thanks. It isn't a big change. IIRC Level Up did the CR in the upper corner, but I might be thinking of a different 5E variant...

I would be genuinely interested in the design decisions they made for the new layout compared to the old. Was having the AC "described" next to the AC a big issue? Why is gear sometimes listed and sometimes not?

Others have already discussed issues with how spellcasting is done, so why do it the way they did?

I would think there should be some reason why, so it would be nice to know. Maybe if I knew, I would agree with their logic--but without knowing, I just can't justify some of the changes.

Also, I realize this layout might cause issues with the "wide stat block", but in that case I would move the CR and XP to their own line (where Proficiency is) and move Proficiency and Initiatve down a line. Like this:

Maybe it is the Libra in me, but you have three key numbers in each column this way and you wouldn't have issue with the wide stat block.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Stating natural armor was better than what they do now... nothing.

And they actually always did enough to explain the AC as far as I can recall. I'm not familiar with every monster WoTC publishes, of course...

But again, with this Kuo-toa, we have AC 13. How? Does that include the shield? There is no gear listed so is it natural armor or something else? I know there DEX mod is 0, and they don't list any special feature like adding WIS or CON to AC.

I know I can describe it "either way" but it creates ambiguity which the old way didn't, so why change it and possibly make things more confusing for new DMs?

Consider this scenario: I am a new DM and I have a group of kuo-toa near a cave entrance "on guard". A couple are watching, with spear and shield wielded. Others are sitting or lying around without their "gear" (which was can't call gear because it isn't listed as gear...). The PCs win initiative, rush them and one kuo-toa without his shield is attacked.

According to the stat block, it is AC 13---even without the shield. Right? The "sticky shield" feature doesn't specify it grants +2 to AC, there is no gear listed (unlike other stat blocks) so I can't assume the sticky shield is gear that needs to be equipped, etc. or functions like a normal shield in bumping AC by +2.

As I said before, is "AC 13 (natural armor, shield)" that hard to put in the stat block? No. And that tells the DM that without a shield the kuo-toa is AC 11. Since there is no DEX mod and no other AC influencing feature, I know the natural armor gives them AC 11. I can describe that natural armor however I want, but WotC could have been even more specific if they had wanted. But now I know what the numbers are and where they come from, as where simply AC 13 leaves some ambiguity and is not a necessary or even good change IMO.


Yeah, the Skeleton statblocks are even worse offenders! Just ridiculous!!

Skeleton
AC 13, DEX mod +3, yet it has the same equipment it had in life... so I guess none of them wear any armor? They don't list any under gear, so I guess not.

Warhorse Skeleton
AC 13, DEX mod +1, so 2 points of AC are what? Natural armor? The "text" says they wear scraps of barding... so is that the extra 2 points? Or is the barding 1 point and 1 point of natural armor? I have no way of knowing as DM or player. They have no "gear" listed (which they SHOULD! if the barding helps their AC--it is armor then), so I guess whatever scraps of barding they have it isn't "armor"...?

Minotaur Skeleton
AC 12, DEX mod +0, so again 2 points. Natural armor I guess. No armor of any sort in the fluff text, no "gear" listed. Oh, wait, the fluff text mentions them using battleaxes like regular minotaurs. Makes sense. But their ACTIONS don't... just the slam attack. WTF? In the 2014 it states Battleaxe and does better damage than the "slam" in 2024...

Ok... so far I have no armor, "barding" maybe for some armor (or might be natural armor), and then I guess natural armor.

Finally, the Flaming Skeleon:
AC 15, DEX mod +2, so now 3 points of unaccounted for protection. I suppose we'll have to assume natural armor again...

But of course, none of this makes sense. Skeletons get no natural armor, the warhorse might, the minotaur seems to, and so does the flaming skeleton. They are all just skeletal creatures, wouldn't their natural armor be the same? Seems like +0, +1 (maybe), +2, and +3, respectively. Smacks of being arbitrary and without justification.

Now, you change all these to the following and there shouldn't be any confusion if someone knows how ACs work in the normal scope of the game:

Kuo-toa: AC 13 (natural armor AC 11, shield)
Skeleton: AC 13 (no armor)
Warhorse Skeleton: AC 13 (barding scraps AC 12)
Minotaur Skeleton: AC 12 (natural armor AC 12)
Flaming Skeleton: AC 15 (natural armor AC 13)

You don't even have to include the AC granted by the natural armor, but why not?

Calling this confusion reminds me of my father who tried to drive off the road, because I said "go straight" and the road curved, so he decided to drive straight and nearly off the road because I wasn't clear enough.

You decide to have some Kuo-Toa not holding their shields. Do they have AC 13 or 11... you decide. There is no confusion here, there is no crisis. If you want them to have a lower AC which would be why they don't have their shields equipped during guard duty then just lower their AC.

Does the horse have scraps of barding or are their bones reinforced with dark magic? Does it matter? The party isn't really going to loot rotting barding off a horse skeleton are they?

And sure, it may not have hurt anything to add the text to the side. But... it is also rather trivial to run the math. 10+dex is normal unarmored AC, every DM knows that. 15-(10+dex) is pretty simple math. So they can tell "I need to to account for 3 pts of AC" and.... then they can do so. Maybe give the monster some armor, maybe give them some enhanced toughness. Either way works, and the DM does not need to descend into a pit of despair because WoTC didn't write "natural armor" next to the AC 15.