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


log in or register to remove this ad

They are already dramatically different though? I'm fine with Fey Goblins, totally works for me, but I've never ever thought they were similar in feel to Orcs.
Maybe. For old school, I cant tell the difference between between Orc and Goblin. I dont have too much exposure to 3e Orc or Goblin. In 4e, Orc relates to Giant, and if I recall correctly speak Giant. For 5e, I am not exactly sure what an Orc, albeit it is a Humanoid species. But 5e Goblin is Fey, a creature of the fairy world − I understand exactly what this is.
 

How? I don't see goblins as fey, certainly not D&D goblins. And in particular, I think trying to change them after 50 years is ridiculous.
Again, I just don't see why it matters. Goblins are, and always have been, whatever you say they are in your world. In my last campaign, they were what happens when gnomes go bad. What WotC prints doesn't change that one bit.
 

Again, I just don't see why it matters. Goblins are, and always have been, whatever you say they are in your world. In my last campaign, they were what happens when gnomes go bad. What WotC prints doesn't change that one bit.
It doesn't matter, to my game. I still think trying to change their nature after 50 years is ridiculous.
 

Maybe. For old school, I cant tell the difference between between Orc and Goblin. I dont have too much exposure to 3e Orc or Goblin. In 4e, Orc relates to Giant, and if I recall correctly speak Giant. For 5e, I am not exactly sure what an Orc, albeit it is a Humanoid species. But 5e Goblin is Fey, a creature of the fairy world − I understand exactly what this is.

One is small, the other is larger than 'normal'.
One is malicious and sneaky, the other is aggressive and violent.

Simple.
 

It doesn't matter, to my game. I still think trying to change their nature after 50 years is ridiculous.
I dont think of it as a "change" so much as a translation.

In old school, especially 1e, the fairy species are surprisingly prominent, especially the many different kinds of wee folk, from Leprechaun to Spriggan.

The "Fey" Plane is very important in old school, except there wasnt much of a Fey Plane. (There is an obscure reference to the place of the "Faerie", but it wasnt part of the 1e Players Handbook cosmology that the Monster Manual referred.)

But now that 5e has a proper Fey Plane, all of these Fey creatures can properly belong there.

This includes Dryad, Sprite, Pixie, and yes Goblin.
 

One is small, the other is larger than 'normal'.
Heh, so the Orc and the Goblin are as different from each other as a Medium Human is to a Small Human?

One is malicious and sneaky, the other is aggressive and violent.
Heh − because "malicious" is different from "aggressive" − science should use this to distinguish one species from an other.

Is it tho?

Fey. That feels different to me.
 

I dont think of it as a "change" so much as a translation.

In old school, especially 1e, the fairy species are surprisingly prominent, especially the many different kinds of wee folk, from Leprechaun to Spriggan.

The "Fey" Plane is very important in old school, except there wasnt much of a Fey Plane. (There is an obscure reference to the place of the "Faerie", but it wasnt part of the 1e Players Handbook cosmology that the Monster Manual referred.)

But now that 5e has a proper Fey Plane, all of these Fey creatures can properly belong there.

This includes Dryad, Sprite, Pixie, and yes Goblin.
Orcs, goblins and kobolds all spring from very similar roots in folklore, as do many other creatures in D&D. Why are only goblins fey? That is a choice, not an effort towards any sort of lore consistency.
 

Had this be a return to the past, orc would become "giant-types" like 1e and be "embodiments of strength and aggression". Gruumush would be the God of Strength. Evil in some settings. Neutral in others. Good in a few.
1e giant type was every humanoid non good monster from kobolds to goblins to orcs to gnolls to large sized ogres and trolls and giants. It was basically natural humanoids in 4e (not undead or outsider or elemental humanoids) and included 3e humanoid and giant types.
 

Heh, so the Orc and the Goblin are as different from each other as a Medium Human is to a Small Human?

I reject the 5.5 concept of 'small human' so it doesnt matter.

Heh − because "malicious" is different from "aggressive" − science should use this to distinguish one species from an other.

I mean...yes. From a tropes perspective they are.

Is it tho?

Very.

Fey. That feels different to me.

Not really, you can drop it and it has zero impact on the species from presentation to play. Its just an excuse by Wizards to turn them into 'an expression of X' so they can be more justifiably (to those who think such things matter) killed.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top