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

In 5.0, I understood the Fey creatures as manifestations of the influences of nature. But that is no longer true in 5.5.

In 5.5, the Feywild is an alternate reality 'somewhere else', without a meaningful connection to nature.

Or maybe there is a connection, and the Feywild is somehow 'inside nature', sotospeak, as an 'echo' of nature. But I am still struggling to wrap my head around how this works, exactly.

But 5e Goblin is Fey, a creature of the fairy world − I understand exactly what this is.
That was a quick turnaround! :)

What is your epiphany on what 5e now says fey are?
 

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.
Yeah, reallife "kobold" = Gnome.

In my headcanon, the D&D kobold derives from referring to the species as a "kobold dragon", something like a dragon that was small, humanish shape, associating with the underground, and known for gadgetry.

"Goblins" are something alike Gnomes Gone Wild. It is a kind of "sprite", a diminutive nature spirit, originally understood as if a humanlike small child (being amoral in a way that children might be), but often depicted as an adult of small size.

I am unsure what a 5e Orc is, conceptually. In reallife etymology the term "orc" is a variant of both "ogre" and the Roman shadowfell "orcus". So for Orc I want to lean into giant themes and shadow necromancy.
 
Last edited:

That was a quick turnaround! :)

What is your epiphany on what 5e now says fey are?
I did say that I am "struggling" to make sense of the 5.5 Feywild "exactly". In the meantime there are variegated points of data that need to somehow all reconcile.
 

Yeah, reallife "kobold" = Gnome.

In my headcanon, the D&D kobold derives from referring to the species as a "kobold dragon", something like a dragon that was small, humanish shape, associating with the underground, and known for gadgetry.

"Goblins" are something alike Gnomes Gone Wild. It is a kind of "sprite", a diminutive nature spirit, originally understood as if a humanlike small child (being amoral in a way that children might be), but often depicted as an adult of small size.

I am unsure what a 5e Orc is, conceptually. In reallife etymology the term "orc" is a variant of both "ogre" and the Roman "shadowfell". So for Orc I want to lean into giant themes and shadow necromancy.
So you've come up with your own personal lore to explain the difference. Fair enough. So have I.
 

As an aside, I think the real problem here is that D&D goblins have actually acquired a personality, and did so before the Fey stuff, but works fine with the Fey stuff.

Whereas D&D's orcs have, at least since 1990, been just about the most "pulled in every direction" orcs of any major fantasy game, with no particular identity, and frequent changes. Particularly no edition from 2E onwards has been able to give them a distinctive or interesting culture - "generic barbarians" is not a distinctive culture, and Gruumsh just doesn't have the juice, no matter how much people might wish he did. 5E pushed them into a sort of "generic racist stereotype", which was, uh, not a good idea on any level whatsoever (but rather a weird sop to some people who don't even typically play D&D). I.e. "there are loads of them, they reproduce fast, they're physically strong but they have no culture, they're and ugly and stupid and can never be more than ugly and stupid because they are inherently inferior, and they want to come here and take our stuff and our women!". It's been applied to countless cultures on earth by other cultures, but given much of the 19th and 20th (and now 21st) centuries have had white people applying it liberally to Black, Asian and Latin American peoples (in roughly that time order), it was kind of a shockingly bad idea to try and do "Orcs are like this weird racist stereotype but for real!". Just don't make racist stereotypes in to species in fantasy, people!

And worse, it wasn't even distinctive or interesting! Yet another D&D orc-fail.

Ironically, orcs might best be served by the generic and overdone but not too common in D&D trope of "honorable warrior species", which is what they seem to have acquired in 5E 2024. It's not much, but it's more than they've had for a long time (outside of the odd setting-specific portrayal which didn't catch on generally, like Eberron).
 

As an aside, I think the real problem here is that D&D goblins have actually acquired a personality, and did so before the Fey stuff, but works fine with the Fey stuff.

Whereas D&D's orcs have, at least since 1990, been just about the most "pulled in every direction" orcs of any major fantasy game, with no particular identity, and frequent changes. Particularly no edition from 2E onwards has been able to give them a distinctive or interesting culture - "generic barbarians" is not a distinctive culture, and Gruumsh just doesn't have the juice, no matter how much people might wish he did. 5E pushed them into a sort of "generic racist stereotype", which was, uh, not a good idea on any level whatsoever (but rather a weird sop to some people who don't even typically play D&D). I.e. "there are loads of them, they reproduce fast, they're physically strong but they have no culture, they're and ugly and stupid and can never be more than ugly and stupid because they are inherently inferior, and they want to come here and take our stuff and our women!". It's been applied to countless cultures on earth by other cultures, but given much of the 19th and 20th (and now 21st) centuries have had white people applying it liberally to Black, Asian and Latin American peoples (in roughly that time order), it was kind of a shockingly bad idea to try and do "Orcs are like this weird racist stereotype but for real!". Just don't make racist stereotypes in to species in fantasy, people!

And worse, it wasn't even distinctive or interesting! Yet another D&D orc-fail.

Ironically, orcs might best be served by the generic and overdone but not too common in D&D trope of "honorable warrior species", which is what they seem to have acquired in 5E 2024. It's not much, but it's more than they've had for a long time (outside of the odd setting-specific portrayal which didn't catch on generally, like Eberron).
They should have just made the Eberron orc the standard orc. It is like the one time they have ever gotten it right.

The 5E 2024 orc is just a noble savage trope.
 

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.
I forgot about that. But I am interested in using the 5e "Giant" creature type in a similar way for various animistic concepts.

The idea is a Giant is an Elemental that is native to the Material Plane. Within the Material Plane, all of the Elements of the natural world − soil, sunshine, rain, wind − have souls. These are nonhuman souls, where a water behaves the way water does because it "wants" to. But sometimes these animistic influences can manifest as if in humanlike ways. These spirits projecting from the natural elements can roam the ethereal plane. For example, a Stone Giant is a manifestation within the Material Plane as if in a humanlike form but from a specific nearby rock formation.

To handle animstic concepts in 5.0, I would involve the Feywild. But for 5.5, I am revisiting how to best deal with animism.
 

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.
It's also true that being a "giant class humanoid" wasn't really doing a lot of lifting - other than giving rangers extra damage. It didn't, for example, define what a charm person could affect since that spell could affect some of the entries on the giant class humanoid list but not others.
It wasn't until 3e, that I recall, that those classifications meant something more and would be keywords for who spells could affect, what things they might be immune to, etc. And since then, they've been rejiggered with every edition, major and minor and Pathfinder. Some classifications have gone away, new ones have been invented, and creatures have shifted from one group to another with every edition revision.
So, why, exactly, the consternation over goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears being shifted to fey? It does shift their vulnerability to certain kinds of spells - true. But then, even in 1e, bugbears weren't subject to charm person or hold person despite being humanoid and cousin to goblins/hobgoblins (who were subject to those spells). More recent editions have tightened those definitions up a bit (thanks to classifications being MUCH better defined than in 1e days), so it can come as a bit of a surprise when experienced 5e.2014 players run into them with 5e.2024 rules.
To my mind, shifting from humanoid to fey enables them to be portrayed a bit more stereotypically - your magical-creature essentialist, if you will. So it's a bit of a reclassification shell game from design that enables them to say that they're respecting concerns about bioessentialism while still kind of having it for creatures they intend to use more antagonistically like gnolls and, now, goblinoids.
 

Ironically, orcs might best be served by the generic and overdone but not too common in D&D trope of "honorable warrior species", which is what they seem to have acquired in 5E 2024. It's not much, but it's more than they've had for a long time (outside of the odd setting-specific portrayal which didn't catch on generally, like Eberron).
Mainly from the "adrenaline" take, I am associating 5e Orc with internet influencers that film themselves doing insanely dangerous stunts.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top