Five Takeaways From the 2025 Monster Manual

The 2025 Monster Manual is the missing puzzle piece for Dungeons & Dragons' recent Fifth Edition revisions, with reworked monsters that hit harder and make combat more exciting at every level. Released in February, the new Monster Manual drives home many of the design choices made in other parts of D&D's core rulebooks. Building off of a decade's worth of lessons about how DMs use statblocks and how players tend to handle combat, the Monster Manual features creatures with streamlined abilities meant to speed up combat without sacrificing the "fun" of fighting in the game. Plus, the book includes a ton of gorgeous new artwork that depicts D&D's iconic monsters at their most threatening. Here are five of my biggest takeaways from the new Monster Manual.

1) Revamped Legendary Actions, With More Power Than Before.

arch hag hed.jpg


One of the big goals of the new Monster Manual was to redesign monsters to have them punch harder but simultaneously make them easier to run. This design ethos can be seen in many revamped monster statblocks, especially at higher Challenge Ratings. Lair actions are now incorporated into the statblock, with monsters typically gaining access to an additional Legendary Resistance and Legendary Action while in their lair. Additionally, many of the Legendary Actions are much more powerful than their 5E equivalents, with creatures usually gaining more dangerous options.

For instance, all of the dragons have lost their functionally worthless "Detect" action and instead have access to new spellcasting options or more powerful attacks. The Adult Blue Dragon, as an example, can cast Shatter as a Legendary Action or it can cast Invisibility on itself and then move up to half its speed. While not as strong as the dragon's standard actions, the Adult Blue Dragon can now do a lot more over the course of a round then simply deal moderate amounts of damage and soak up hits from opponents.

2) Either Attack Rolls or Saving Throws, Not Both

otyugh.jpg


Another major streamlining within rulesets is that monster attacks with effects are either triggered with a failed saving throw OR a successful attack roll. This should significantly speed up combat by reducing the number of rolls made during a game. As an example, the Bearded Devil's 2014 statblock included a Beard attack that damaged on a successful hit and forced its target to make a Constitution saving throw or be Poisoned. In the 2025 Monster Manual, the Bearded Devil's Beard attack deals damage and automatically inflicts the Poisoned condition on a successful attack.

There's two major consequences to this. The first is that only one dice roll is needed to determine the success or failure of a certain attack or ability. The second is that a creature is more often able to threaten player characters at their intended level. By having a creature's full attack trigger based on a single success instead two successes (or I suppose a success combined with a separate creature's failure), it radically changes the dynamics of many D&D combats.

3) Yes, The Art Is Fantastic

cultists.jpg


Keeping with another theme of the 2024/2025 Core Rulebooks, the artwork in the new Monster Manual is frankly fantastic. There are a lot of D&D players, myself included, who love to look through the Monster Manual and other bestiaries primarily for the art and lore. Those players should be more than happy with this new book, which contains artwork for every single monster in the book. What's more, much of the artwork shows the monsters in action. The Chasme, for example, looks much more threatening in the 2025 Monster Manual, with art showing the demon hunched over an adventurer with its probiscus covered in blood. Compare that imagery to the 2014 Monster Manual, which just has the chasme standing in profile.

One comment made to me by Jeremy Crawford was that Wizards had found that monsters without art tended to be used less often, so I'm expecting the trend of more art to continue in future books.

4) A Handful of Interesting New Mechanics

arch hag hed.jpg


While not found widely in the new Monster Manual, there are a handful of new (or at least very uncommon) mechanics. The Empyrean, for instance, has a Sacred Weapon attack that deals damage and Stuns its target. However, the target can choose to bypass the Stunned condition by taking additional damage. Meanwhile, the Arch Hag has multiple abilities that curse their opponent, taking away their ability to use Reactions or spells with verbal components. Additionally, the hag has a bonus action that deals automatic damage to anyone cursed by the witch.

Finding new mechanics in the Monster Manual is rare, but they represent some interesting innovation that hopefully will be incorporated with future statblocks. Not every creature needs stacking abilities, or "pick your poison" choices, but I love these and want to see them more often in the future.

5) Species-Free NPCs

pirates.jpg


Over the past few weeks, Wizards has revealed several monsters with new creature classification types. Goblins, aarakocra, lizardfolk, kobolds, and kenku are all now classified as non-humanoids. It's interesting that non-humanoid species often have multiple statblocks with unique abilities, but that the humanoid statblocks are meant to include elves, dwarves, orcs, humans, and more. I'm assuming (given that Eberron: Forge of the Artificer is bringing back the Warforged) that D&D won't remove non-humanoid species as playable species, but it feels like there's a deliberate push to make all humanoids interchangeable, at least when it comes to these NPC stats.

It's a shame that Wizards seems to have done away with templates in the new Monster Manual because they'd be useful for transforming a generic guard or scout into a Drow guard or a Dragonborn scout. I don't think these would be hard to homebrew if necessary, but I do feel like this is one of the bigger misses in the Monster Manual. Hopefully, we'll see more specialization in the future, and the Monster Manual opted to focus on monsters instead of highly specific statblocks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

Wow.

",,,it radically changes the dynamics of many D&D combats."

I'll say. It's probably the biggest change in D&D mechanics in the history of the game. What it does is radically minimize the value of having good saving throws. We're now fully at, "The best block; no be there." The game has always had a tendency to push players toward "party turret" strategies where you solved all problems by having radically more powerful ranged attacks than your foes and killed them quickly before they could attack you. This allowed the party to deal with all tactical situations the same way, ignoring terrain and moving only to kite when possible. Avoiding that situation has been a big part of my design goals since 1e and is a big part of the reason I enjoy my 3e homebrew rules, as it forces combat into movement, positioning and choices of weapons and tactics depending on the type of foe. When I ran combats in default 3.5e at an open table with 3.5e legal characters, parties naturally evolved into turrets that stayed in place and just unleashed ranged attacks, relying on exploits of the rules to not have downsides to using missile weapons.

I'm looking at that change and that change alone means D&D has left me further behind than at any point in its history. Heck, one of the things I had to fix in 3.5e is they made similar "simplifying" changes with spells like "Ray of Enfeeblement" leading to broken attacks were all the PC had to do was hit the target in order to nerf it (often sufficiently to take some foes functionally out of the fight).

Leaving aside everything else, which I also don't like, this is utterly game breaking for me and suggests a misguided notion to appeal heavily to the rules light side at the expense of the people who actually prefer rules heavy games. I suggest they are unlikely to win over the rules light people who will prefer less crunchy games with more coherent designs anyway, while turning away everyone who was into the crunch had more process simulation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think this is a highly suspect approach. Either violence against sentient creatures is problematic, or it's not- the creature's type shouldn't affect that calculus.
Not to go deep.

It's not a question on sentient humanoids.
It's that in some settings, some species lack free will from the racial patron gods which affect their culturr. And some settings they do.

WOTC doesn't want to get in that mud.
 

This bothers me too. Goblins are obviously humanoid by the dictionary definition of the term, never mind 50 years of D&D tradition. So they're fey instead? Fine, but why not both? How are those concepts mutually exclusive?

Probably because no one has ever latched onto Goblins as representing a particular real world ethnic group.

This is the Klingon problem. In Star Trek, the Klingons evolved over time from being simplistic orcs that reveled in being deceitful tricky backstabbing monsters, fulfilling the role of "obvious one-dimensional bad guys" well, to being an honorable warrior species. But because people aren't very creative, in trying to make the Klingons into less one-dimensional villains people with the best of intentions but no real discernment started increasingly borrowing bits of Japanese culture and gluing it onto the Klingons - making them more and more like Samurai. So now it is reasonable to ask, "Are Klingons a sort of negative Asian stereotype?" And the answer should be, "No, Klingons aren't Asian, Sulu is Asian. Klingons are Klingons." But well, that argument is hard to sustain once people start deliberately developing their culture from Japanese, down to having Klingon Opera based on Noh and so forth. Mix in a liberal sprinkling of Viking culture (as it is popularly imagined) and you have "honorable warrior people who love fighting". Is it racist? Well, maybe or maybe not, but it isn't very creative.

The same thing has happened particular with Orcs and Native Americans, both in D&D products and outside D&D. Need a primitive warrior people? Grab Native American garb. Heck, WotC for all its protesting is still doing this stupidity, presenting orcs in the most recent addition as Latinos.

Now, could I protest that Goblins are a negative racial stereotype? I probably could. We could actually trace that as well, though I don't think it is was ever the intention, it does suggest how even in the 1990s attempts to be "racially sensitive" often led to being more racist than before rather than less. (Again, Latino orcs or the fact that Lando Calrissian is a more respectful black character than Finn, as poor John Boyega who deserved better will happily agree with me on.)

Personally, I think that WotC is just making the problem worse and more embarrassing (those minstrel people in the Spelljammer setting, what the heck were they thinking?) I can sympathize with, "We don't want people to identify this fantasy species with an ethnic group", but every time they try to fix it I feel they make the problem radically worse. And the problem of thinking that "you can't have sentient species who are inherently evil; let's fix the problem by doing away with that" is that it just leads to absurdity, as some other controversies in popular media are showing.
 

I think this is a highly suspect approach. Either violence against sentient creatures is problematic, or it's not- the creature's type shouldn't affect that calculus.
Again, that isn't what it is about. There is no issue with "violence against sentients" or else you couldn't even use cultists as enemies.

The issue is biological essentialism. What the type change is meant to do is give supernatural origins and backgrounds to certain creatures so that they can fill their roles without that specter hanging over them.
 

WOTC doesn't want to get in that mud.

They got into that mud as soon as they started treating goblins and gnolls differently than orcs. They rolled in it, and I suspect now they are going to find themselves dealing with the consequences. A coherent explanation won't satisfy the most radical critics on either side. Leaving well enough alone and letting people decide for themselves would have probably offended fewer people.
 

They got into that mud as soon as they started treating goblins and gnolls differently than orcs. They rolled in it, and I suspect now they are going to find themselves dealing with the consequences. A coherent explanation won't satisfy the most radical critics on either side. Leaving well enough alone and letting people decide for themselves would have probably offended fewer people.
I can't believe there are "radical critics" on any side. Don't people ever make up their own backgrounds of orcs and dragons and witches and shite anymore?
 


I can't believe there are "radical critics" on any side.

LOL. Ok. I can't make you believe that, but at least to me it feels self-evidently true. Get on social media and you'll find blocks of people with very radically different beliefs and critiques.

Don't people ever make up their own backgrounds of orcs and dragons and witches and shite anymore?

That's a completely unrelated question. Traditionally D&D leaned on the side of, "Here are some stat blocks, make up your own culture and ecology, cosmology, and world view." So yes they do, but the problem is people take anyone's decision to not go in the same direction they have as a moral failing, including the publisher.
 

LOL. Ok. I can't make you believe that, but at least to me it feels self-evidently true. Get on social media and you'll find blocks of people with very radically different beliefs and critiques.
I didn't mean literally. It is just a turn of phrase.
That's a completely unrelated question. Traditionally D&D leaned on the side of, "Here are some stat blocks, make up your own culture and ecology, cosmology, and world view." So yes they do, but the problem is people take anyone's decision to not go in the same direction they have as a moral failing, including the publisher.
The less baked in lore, the better, I always say.
 

The issue is biological essentialism. What the type change is meant to do is give supernatural origins and backgrounds to certain creatures so that they can fill their roles without that specter hanging over them.
Which D&D has been trying to move away from since 5e's debut back in 2014. The most recent move away from biological essentialism in D&D was to move ASIs away from a given species and into a given background. I am not completely convinced a Type change is a significant move given that there is not much to them nowadays. In past editions, the Elemental type referred to a creature made up of air, earth, fire or water. The Elemental Type also came with a list of traits that nearly all elementals had in common. Now the Type just refers to beings from an Elemental Plane. So, if you were a human who had been born and raised on one of the Elemental Plane, wouldn't that make you an Elemental instead of a Humanoid?

One other aspect of Biological Essentialism that D&D has not moved away from is the separation of traits a species was born with and those they learned from growing up within a given culture. But that's another topic to be discussed elsewhere, I think.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top