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.

 

[AlViking]

Well fingers crossed that it is more tougher than weaker. My players are waltzing through my creatures, even when I add more of them to try to adjust.

There are a lot of reasons for encounters being too easy but resting too easily and too often is a major culprit along with too many powerful magical items. My solution has just been a combination including not letting them rest as often as they want and throwing monsters of a higher challenge rating. The higher level monsters are generally tougher while the monsters below five or so don't seem much different from the previews we've seen.

 

[dave2008]

Well fingers crossed that it is more tougher than weaker. My players are waltzing through my creatures, even when I add more of them to try to adjust.

Are you using the 2014 or 2024 encounter building guidelines or just winging it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have read this whole thread and I am a little baffled that there is any argument here. People are saying that they don't like that they removed the explaination for what AC represents (I don't like it either) and other people are saying it doesn't bother them, and you can just make it up, so it is not needed.

So... Why does this need to be argued? If you don't need it, great! Don't dump on those of us that like to have that explaination. For me it would speed things up. I don't want to have to stop and make up a reason why a creature has the AC it does.

I'm not trying to dump on anyone for wanting to have the explanation. I'm pointing out that the level of concern seems unwarranted. People are acting like this will grind the game to a halt for thousands of tables across the country, and ruins the book. It just isn't that serious of an issue.

My players will absolutely ask me, "Why does a skeleton horse have a highter AC? Shouldn't it be easier to hit since it is bigger?" I should be able to just glance at the Skeleton Warhorse AC, see that it has natural armor, and just tell the players, "It's tougher than a normal skeleton."

Right now I would glance and say, "I don't know, it doesn't say. I guess it is just tougher?" That doesn't feel good to me. Sure I can make it up... I just did... but I shouldn't have to. If you don't care or don't mind making it up, that's great for you. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there for the rest of us.

What are you talking about? It doesn't have a higher AC. It has 13 AC, the same as the skeleton. And in fact, the other "big" skeleton is the minotaur skeleton with 12 AC, and you are unlikely to use both of them in the same fight. So the only one with a significantly higher AC is the flaming skeleton, which is a magical boss monster for that sort of encounter. And... yeah, that makes sense to have as higher AC.

Additionally, "easier to hit because it is bigger" has not been a thing in DnD 5e this entire time. So if your players are asking that, they are bringing in older edition rules into this edition. That's a mistake on their part, not the designers.

And the Skeleton Warhorse is the easy one. The Kuo-Toa is trickier. I could totally see that stopping my game for five minutes while we try to figure it out. You might think it shouldn't take that long, but everyone is going to want to give their opinion on it. So it will take up time. And it was completely avoidable! They just had to NOT CHANGE IT!

I also do want to point out, that the Kuo-Toa and the Skeletons are previews and were marked as not final. And the only thing that has been requested (originally) to "fix" the Kuo-Toa was to include the shield in their gear listing. Which likely is something they don't want to indicate MUST be given to PCs who defeat Kuo-Toa.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To the Gelatinous Cube.... I'm not sure if it is much weaker. Less hp, but more damage from the psuedopod. Engulf damage cut in half, but it is possible to auto-fail. I might have missed more, but it seems only slightly weaker. Which might be good, CR monsters sometimes were stacked, and 87 hp was a lot to get through for a party before level 3

 

[Maxperson]

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

 

[SlyFlourish]

I hear a lot of complaints about this one, but I actually like it. Now, if I need a save I just look at the save line and if I need a mod I look at the mod line. I don't have to figure anything out. From my perspective it is more elegant. But everyone is different and has different needs and different ways of processing information.

And I am not a fan of dropping the ability score like some have done. I use abilities scores and just having the mod is not enough for me. Plus, for me the ability score is a little bit of lore tucked into the stat block that I like.

what do you use ability scores for?

 

[SlyFlourish]

Not that my opinion matters but I agree that AC has a meaning in the game's world in a way that hit points and attack bonuses and other stats dont. An AC 10 has some meaning (basically, an unarmored average dex commoner type) as does AC 20 (a plate-armored humanoid with a shield).

In Forge of Foes, we include both an incremental AC based on challenge rating but we describe that you can better apply AC by asking yourself how hard this creature is to hit, either with its physical plating or its speed (or both). I think the measure of "normal humanoid with no armor" to "humanoid in full plate with a shield" is a useful way to look at it.

I don't think I need every stat block to tell me why an AC is the way it is. If I can figure it out by looking at the art or reading the monster's description, thats enough for me.

But I do think AC isn't as arbitrary as hit points (or hit dice, which is super-arbitrary – ask any 5e monster designer how much time they spend worrying about hit dice. All of us have some excel sheet that just figures it out for us so we don't waste our time on it).

I'm a big fan of how Tales of the Valiant handles monsters. Static hit points without hit dice (you can always change it if you want). Just flat abiltiy bonuses with proficiency already worked in. Nice and straight forward.

I'm sure I'll learn to live with the eighteen boxes for six numbers excel spreadsheet in the 2025 Monster Manual stat blocks, but I think it's way too nitpicky for what I need for my own game.

 

[Clint_L]

To the Gelatinous Cube.... I'm not sure if it is much weaker. Less hp, but more damage from the psuedopod. Engulf damage cut in half, but it is possible to auto-fail. I might have missed more, but it seems only slightly weaker. Which might be good, CR monsters sometimes were stacked, and 87 hp was a lot to get through for a party before level 3

I like it - it plays different than a lot of other creatures. Super easy to hit but it does big damage for the level at which you are likely to encounter it, so you'd better burn it down fast.

 

[dave2008]

what do you use ability scores for?

i have always wanted to do more with them and create tables similar to encumbrance for each ability score to give each point more weight. I haven't done that yet, but here are the 3 things we do in our game

1. Tiebreaker: If an ability score contest ends in a tie, the creature with the higher score wins
2. Damage: On melee attacks you add your ability score -10 to your damage, not your ability mod.
3. Expertise: instead of 2x prof. bonus, expertise is ability score -10 + prof. bonus

 

[Lord Twig]

Are you using the 2014 or 2024 encounter building guidelines or just winging it?

I mostly use published adventures and add creatures to what is listed.