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

That doesn't sound like a solo monster, that sounds like designing an entire dungeon.
Ummm, my definition of a "solo" monster is just that it's by itself in a specific combat encounter. Not that it's necessarily a hermit living all by itself in the wilderness. Most of the solo encounters I've seen in published form have been inside dungeons.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ummm, my definition of a "solo" monster is just that it's by itself in a specific combat encounter. Not that it's necessarily a hermit living all by itself in the wilderness. Most of the solo encounters I've seen in published form have been inside dungeons.
Sure but I'm pointing out that to make the fight not be one the Mind Flayer is going to lose or flee from, you have to assume either surprisingly incompetent players, or build an entire dungeon around ensuring the Mind Flayer is protected and forewarned and he still may well have to run away!
 


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
Given that scenario it makes me wonder if my players cheat lol
 


Yeah, I have experienced players and barring terrible dice, they steamroll even Double Deadly solo encounters all the time. Solo monsters in 5E DO NOT WORK.
They most certainly can work, and better than any previous edition IMO, it is just that most are two low CR to provide an adequate challenge (in published adventures I mean, a DM can obviously do anything they want here). It obviously varies from group to group, but I find for 4 PCs a monster CR of PC level +10 is a good challenge.* If you have more PCs I find it better to buff the defense and/or attacks of the monster instead of going with a higher CR.

*of course what a good challenge is also depends on the DM/group
 

That doesn't seem to support your position. Could you explain why you think that it does?
Because all the monsters in the MM 2024 who are dedicated to an evil deity exist while the humaniods decided to a deity were shifted to a setting.

The people who need the racial humanoid statbook will get them in setting books
 

Because all the monsters in the MM 2024 who are dedicated to an evil deity exist while the humaniods decided to a deity were shifted to a setting.

The people who need the racial humanoid statbook will get them in setting books
That doesn't actually support the whole "all Orcs are Evil"-type crowd though, does it? That's my point.

Especially as we're talking about the FR, canonically, since at the very least 2E, if not late 1E, there have always been Orcs who were non-Evil.
 

That doesn't actually support the whole "all Orcs are Evil"-type crowd though, does it? That's my point.

Especially as we're talking about the FR, canonically, since at the very least 2E, if not late 1E, there have always been Orcs who were non-Evil.
They only need the statblock.

It would have been great if their were a generic Raider and Ravager in the MM for the warrior with Orcish playstyle.

But that is going in the FR book instead.
 

That's right! As are goblins, and mind flayers, and specters, and barbed devils, and suits of animated armor, and apes, and green hags, and azers, and zombies, and needle blights, and liches, and iron golems, and frost giants, and djinn, and dretches, and (OK, I'm going to stop now), which all have "characteristics (such as bipedalism) resembling those of a human", or "appearance and qualities of a human", or an "appearance or character resembling a human". It's obvious that there are way too many non-Humanoids in D&D!
These are clever observations, and I tip my hat to you. But I think in every case you mentioned, there's some other factor that would argue against them counting as "humanoid" for the purpose of Hold Person. A lich certainly has a human-like form, but it's also obviously something else. And if we have to choose, I think it's more "undead" than "humanoid". I also don't think it can truly be both -- an undead can't be a member of a humanoid species, and therefore doesn't meet the full definition of "humanoid". A snowman is humanoid in one sense, but definitely not in another. Ditto for barbed devils, iron golems, djinn, and so on. They're partially humanoid, but not completely.

But aren't goblins completely humanoid? I'm literally not sure what "humanoid" means in D&D if goblins don't count as one. They're part of a fantasy human-ish species, like hobbits or dwarves. Even if we accept that goblins are "fey", I don't see that they're more fey than elves. So why do elves, hobbits, and dwarves count and goblins don't?

To underscore that point: Crawford said that Hold Person will always work on a PC under 2024 rules, even if the player is a goblin or another species that otherwise doesn't count as humanoid. That's pointlessly illogical and confusing. I'm worried about the new player who (very reasonably) casts Hold Person on a hobgoblin expecting it to work and (pretty unreasonably) being told that it doesn't, for the first time in 50 years of D&D.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top