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

Sure, I can agree on that. I think the element of threat is more evident, even in the examples you give (but yeah, who wins initiative and doesn't roll poorly helps a lot). But I've had very little success even when the mind flayer wins initiative in 5E to contrast.
I was assuming the scenario the OP described: 3 characters walk into a dark room.
In this situation, the Mind Flayer of course knows they're coming, it has good scores in both Perception and Stealth, so it's hovering up in the darkness out of melee reach and will Mind Blast them before they can spread out (if the room even was big enough for that). Most characters will not have good Int saves, and at level 5 only someone with big hit dice and/or high Con can tank that damage. Next round, it Dominates the survivor with the worst Wis save, orders it to grapple and pin one of the others. If there is a third character stilll standing, it moves in and eats their brain. Then it cleans up the remainder.
I'm assuming here that it's feeling cocky and wants to eat live brains. If it feels threatened, well, Mind Blast recharges fairly often...

In general, I agree that solo monsters don't work well in 5e. But as the DM you can mitigate that a bit by playing them smartly
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I was assuming the scenario the OP described: 3 characters walk into a dark room.
In this situation, the Mind Flayer of course knows they're coming, it has good scores in both Perception and Stealth, so it's hovering up in the darkness out of melee reach and will Mind Blast them before they can spread out (if the room even was big enough for that). Most characters will not have good Int saves, and at level 5 only someone with big hit dice and/or high Con can tank that damage. Next round, it Dominates the survivor with the worst Wis save, orders it to grapple and pin one of the others. If there is a third character stilll standing, it moves in and eats their brain. Then it cleans up the remainder.
I'm assuming here that it's feeling cocky and wants to eat live brains. If it feels threatened, well, Mind Blast recharges fairly often...

In general, I agree that solo monsters don't work well in 5e. But as the DM you can mitigate that a bit by playing them smartly
That's not just "playing them smartly".

That's "assuming the players behave like total dunces and walk into a dark room without any caution" and it's "assuming the Mind Flayer's Perception and Stealth pay off", which like, they're not actually very high - +6 and +4 respectively (many PCs will have higher on both by L5). And what is the Mind Flayer doing, hanging out in the dark by himself? If he's heard them coming, maybe but even then it's far from a sure thing - a Rogue or similar might easily slip into the room without the Mind Flayer noticing, if you use the actual rules of the actual game.

EDIT - I'm not speaking theoretically either - the main group I play with, the Rogue or similar is always at least 60' ahead of the party when they're in dangerous areas, and always operating "dark", and usually has a pretty scary-high Stealth. The odds are good he finds the Mind Flayer before it finds them. Even with the dim-est 5E party I played with, they constantly sent familiars ahead to scout and carry lights and so on.
 

This is a very specific approach to the matter with WotC. To contrast, Pathfinder 2E has handled this exceedingly well and stands out for providing all the tools a GM could need for NPCs of various ancestries (and custom NPC stat blocks in the NPC Core, no less) while also meeting the expectations that your table will manage it as works best for you.

I wouldn't blame Warcraft, though; no one playing Warcraft who also plays D&D is thinking somehow that you can't realistically fight humanoid opponents; that's a core conceit of WoW, after all. Indeed, they might be rather peeved that D&D seems to have tried hard to make its orcs distinctly different and weird from both WoW and Tolkein's orcs.
The issue is that D&D has a much much broader customer base than PF2.

If Paizo had the D&D IP, all its baggage, and it's customer base, they'd never ever be able to get away with what they did
 

Nope.

It's a question of free will.

Always evil races could be wise or intelligent.
The issue was whether they could get their patron gods and be not evil.

In some settings, the answer was no. In others, yes. In others, only if they switched to another nonevil deity.
 

The issue is that D&D has a much much broader customer base than PF2.

If Paizo had the D&D IP, all its baggage, and it's customer base, they'd never ever be able to get away with what they did
I don't think that's really true.

I don't think 5E does have a much "broader" customer base than PF2. In think it had a much larger one, but demographically, I think it's actually likely to be very similar to PF2.

I think 2024 actually handled this pretty poorly and honestly is lucky it got away with it, for the most part. Games like A5E did a much better job, and I feel like 5E 2024 tried to be different to that kind of approach (which, post-A5E, several other games have taken), but like, was pretty clumsy and actually kind of opened up new kinds of trouble (classism, for example) with the weird approach they did take (which isn't particularly cool or intuitive either).

2024 could absolutely have followed the PF2 or A5E models if it wanted to.
 

I don't think that's really true
I think it is

I don't think Paizo had to deal with the wants of OD&D, 1e, and 2e grognards over 60 years old.

I think 2024 actually handled this pretty poorly and honestly is lucky it got away with it, for the most part. Games like A5E did a much better job, and I feel like 5E 2024 tried to be different to that kind of approach (which, post-A5E, several other games have taken), but like, was pretty clumsy and actually kind of opened up new kinds of trouble (classism, for example) with the weird approach they did take (which isn't particularly cool or intuitive either).
I agree.

2024 could absolutely have followed the PF2 or A5E models if it wanted to.
I disagree.

There is no way to please the entire D&D base. Especially with some people who get mad just by legitimizing the other options in print.
 

I think it is

I don't think Paizo had to deal with the wants of OD&D, 1e, and 2e grognards over 60 years old.
I don't think WotC really has to either.

Last I heard, over 40 was what, 10%? 12%? Of all D&D players.

And "over 60" is presumably going to be like, less than half of that? So 5% or less? Probably like 2-3%?

So yeah WotC doesn't really have to worry about 2-3% of players. I mean, let me be real, probably more than 2-3% of players in D&D are like, totally huge Furries. And D&D has very poor official support for Furry races (hell it does better on Scalies!). It doesn't even have a Wolf-person species, like the default Fursona, nor a Fox-person species. And their dragon-person species? No wings, no tail, what a failure!

(If you want to contest Fursona popularity: 3.1 Species Popularity - Furscience)

In fact there are loads of subgroups of D&D players WotC doesn't really seem to support which are probably more than 5% of the playerbase.
 

I don't think WotC really has to either.

Last I heard, over 40 was what, 10%? 12%? Of all D&D players.

And "over 60" is presumably going to be like, less than half of that? So 5% or less? Probably like 2-3%?

So yeah WotC doesn't really have to worry about 2-3% of players. I mean, let me be real, probably more than 2-3% of players in D&D are like, totally huge Furries. And D&D has very poor official support for Furry races (hell it does better on Scalies!). It doesn't even have a Wolf-person species, like the default Fursona, nor a Fox-person species. And their dragon-person species? No wings, no tail, what a failure!

(If you want to contest Fursona popularity: 3.1 Species Popularity - Furscience)

In fact there are loads of subgroups of D&D players WotC doesn't really seem to support which are probably more than 5% of the playerbase.
It's not about has.

It's about want.

Other companies are willing to abandon some parts of the full fandom to narrow and hone the scope of their design.

WOTC isn't. They still want the money the fans of "Always Evil Cannon Fodder Slaves to X, the Evil God(dess) of Y".
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top