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

I guess 5.5 Orcs are Eberron Orcs after all? They are Humanoids defined by various notable cultures.
I don't see any defined notable cultures in the two paragraphs of descriptive text on page 195 of the 24 PH.

The closest is Gruumsh made them tough to be able to be sent out into different places like plains and the underdark and that some orcs revere past heroes and some strike out on their own to make their own path.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?
OK, it's clear that WotC developed a set of design constraints for 2024 which were revised to some extent from those for 2014. Among those constraints are the following:
  1. Creatures only have one Type. (carried over from 2014)
  2. "Humanoids are people defined by their roles and professions, such as mages, pirates, and warriors. They include members of varied species." (Monster Manual)
    • Corollary: There are no Humanoid stat blocks in the Monster Manual for species (e.g. goblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, etc.).
  3. All the rules elements (monsters, races/species, spells, magic items, etc.) that appeared in the 2014 books must appear somewhere in the 2024 books so that D&D players have a current reference.*
Thus:
  • Orcs appear in the PHB, and don't need to (or shouldn't, apparently) also appear in the MM.
  • Goblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, etc. don't appear in the PHB, so they must be in the MM, but with non-Humanoid stat blocks.
Now, one doesn't have to like those particular constraints, or can speculate about the reasons for them, but their existence is manifestly obvious. Goblins appearing in the MM as Fey isn't some baffling violation of logic; it's the natural outcome of a design based on certain rules. (And in the case of Fey goblins in particular, on pre-established lore going back to 4e, at least.)

Will the same constraints be in place for products after the Big Three? Might there be Humanoid stat blocks for an Orc Blade of Ilnevaal or a Drow Matron in the FR setting guide? We don't know yet. (Although I doubt it; they'd probably be made Fiends or something.) If a Humanoid goblin shows up as a playable species (again) in a future product, does that invalidate the Fey goblins in the MM? Of course not.

It's worth remembering that the stat blocks in the MM are interpretations, not definitions. The existence of Fey goblin stat blocks doesn't negate the possibility of Humanoid or Fiend or Celestial goblins; those just aren't the ones in the MM. And as a DM, if you want goblins that are Humanoids or Fiends or Celestials, it's super easy; after all, "You can alter a creature’s... type as you please" (Dungeon Master's Guide).

* Apart from half-elves and half-orcs, where they apparently ran into trouble developing a solution they liked. A topic for many other threads.
 

I don't see any defined notable cultures in the two paragraphs of descriptive text on page 195 of the 24 PH.

The closest is Gruumsh made them tough to be able to be sent out into different places like plains and the underdark and that some orcs revere past heroes and some strike out on their own to make their own path.
The 2024 Players Handbook is intentionally setting neutral.

Even the Greyhawk setting in the DMs Guide, if chosen, is somewhat vague about Orcs. But there are regions where Orcs are more prominent, and the Orcs will be prominent aspects of the cultures in these regions.

When choosing the Eberron setting or the Forgotten Realms setting, the Orc cultures will have more "history". But what 2024 encourages is, these cultures where Orcs are prominent can offer unique feats that relate to the Orc cultural themes.
 

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.

As far back as Dragon magazine articles on the Goblin deities as opposed to the orc deities, I picked up on this. I was getting old enough that I was starting to wonder where all this kitchen sink diversity came from and whether it made sense as a story of a world. In Tolkien orcs and goblins were just different ethnic groups (as it were) of orcs. But D&D was making them increasingly distinct, while at the same time just kind of leaning into "They're orcs. You know what they are. Everyone's read Tolkien" while not acknowledging these weren't Tolkien orcs at all. So around 1989 or so I came to the conclusion, "You know, D&D goblins are cool. They have this caste system. They come in all sorts of sizes and shapes. They are part of a larger race of "goblinkind". Orcs are just inferior more savage dumber hobgoblins with nothing scary about them or nothing to make them unique. Goblins are the terror of dark tunnels. Orcs are just rip offs of Tolkien. I don't need two races of ugly evil cannibal creatures. I can just have goblins." So I never had to define what makes Orcs unique, and I had ready answers for what made Goblins unique: they are obligate carnivores, they were magically altered or through selective breeding or both to be these evil little gits, they have this complex caste system, their head deity thinks he was usurped from his throne as king of the gods, and he just wants every other race subjugated or gone. They think they are ugly even in their own eyes because this wasn't their original shape." There was this whole tumbling out non-human culture that didn't have to be based on any real-world inspiration. It was a science fiction sort of thing. Goblins were a sort of aliens, like the more brutally uplifted client species in David Brin's "Uplift" universe, where they'd been hammered into tools rather than being respected as people.

That actually ended up informing how I thought of all the races in my game. If I couldn't figure out a way to make them alien and also complex persons without leaning in on inspiration from real world cultures, I didn't use them in my game. I had no real worries about being "racist", it's just I also wanted to use real world cultures freely as inspirations for the humans in my largely humancentric world. It made no sense for a whole race to be equivalent to a human ethnicity and would have been redundant anyway.
 

I am still struggling to think of cosmological premise that makes kill-on-sight somehow ethical.
There is no such premise. AFAIK, WotC has never once hinted that a change from a Humanoid type to some other was done for the purpose of making them morally easier to murder. No one from WotC has ever said that it's morally OK for PCs to kill any non-Humanoids on sight. After all, that premise would then make it OK to go slaughtering unicorns and Celestials and flumphs.

It also denies the existence of plenty of Humanoids in the Monster Manual that are eminently killworthy. Unless you think that bandit crime lords and aberrant cultists and vampire familiars are just there to be your friends.

This repeated argument that WotC made goblins into Fey and lizardfolk into Elementals so they could be killed without moral consequences for PCs is Just. Not. True.
 

In 2024, the background is a substantial amount of design space, including skills, feat, and languages. The skills and languages are the stuff of culture, plus if necessary a culturally specific feat (such as Strixhaven or Dragonlance) can give oomph to a specific cultural institution.

The Players Handbook offers "generic" backgrounds that are comparable for many cultures. However settings have done and will do, grant backgrounds that are for a specific culture.

A Background is a pre adventure occupation. Not a culture.
 

It's worth remembering that the stat blocks in the MM are interpretations, not definitions. The existence of Fey goblin stat blocks doesn't negate the possibility of Humanoid or Fiend or Celestial goblins; those just aren't the ones in the MM. And as a DM, if you want goblins that are Humanoids or Fiends or Celestials, it's super easy; after all, "You can alter a creature’s... type as you please" (Dungeon Master's Guide).
1744737475299.png
Ah, I see. "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." -- Hector Barbossa (17th century lawyer)

I personally find it rather confusing. Is a goblin a humanoid or a fey? It depends on what day of the week it is and whether the goblin was born when the moon was waxing or waning. Or maybe it depends on whether the DM wants Hold Person to work on it. I don't think this is a great thing for new players. It's true though, I guess I can alter the creature type whenever I feel like, but at some point we're not playing D&D we're playing Calvin Ball.
 

There is no such premise. AFAIK, WotC has never once hinted that a change from a Humanoid type to some other was done for the purpose of making them morally easier to murder. No one from WotC has ever said that it's morally OK for PCs to kill any non-Humanoids on sight. After all, that premise would then make it OK to go slaughtering unicorns and Celestials and flumphs.

It also denies the existence of plenty of Humanoids in the Monster Manual that are eminently killworthy. Unless you think that bandit crime lords and aberrant cultists and vampire familiars are just there to be your friends.

This repeated argument that WotC made goblins into Fey and lizardfolk into Elementals so they could be killed without moral consequences for PCs is Just. Not. True.
You have a point.

Even so, the emphasis on the Orc being Humanoid intentionally removes it from the possibility of being "innately Evil". Both Humans and Orcs can belong to an Evil faction.
 

A Background is a pre adventure occupation. Not a culture.
Coming from the human sciences, I find that statement bizarre. As if there is such a thing as an "occupation" without a culture?

There was a time when there was no such thing as people who built houses. The invention of the idea = culture.
 

The 2024 Players Handbook is intentionally setting neutral.

Even the Greyhawk setting in the DMs Guide, if chosen, is somewhat vague about Orcs. But there are regions where Orcs are more prominent, and the Orcs will be prominent aspects of the cultures in these regions.

When choosing the Eberron setting or the Forgotten Realms setting, the Orc cultures will have more "history". But what 2024 encourages is, these cultures where Orcs are prominent can offer unique feats that relate to the Orc cultural themes.
This is agreeing that core 24 D&D orcs have no defined cultures of their own to use as a base or for DMs to riff off of or change for their specific setting. It leaves stuff open for specific settings to possibly define them in setting books (FR and Eberron coming up and we will see how they handle them) but for generic D&D or even sample existing DMG Greyhawk 24 setting there is not much to go on besides make it up yourself or steal form elsewhere (Tolkien, Warhammer 40K, Warcraft, Klingons, tribal raider or savages stereotypes, evil minions, prior Eberron, Prior Gruumsh stuff, Shadowrun).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top