D&D (2024) Monster Manual 2025 Stat Block Compilation

This thread contains a compilation of the Monster Manual 2025 stat blocks which have been previewed publicly so far.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Thanks. It isn't a big change. IIRC Level Up did the CR in the upper corner, but I might be thinking of a different 5E variant...

Yeah, Level Up does it that way. It's just smart.

I would be genuinely interested in the design decisions they made for the new layout compared to the old. Was having the AC "described" next to the AC a big issue? Why is gear sometimes listed and sometimes not?

I don't think it was a big issue, but I also don't think it's a big issue to leave it out, in particular when it's somewhat redundant. The gear thing, I'm pretty sure, is a change from 2014's strange rule that pretty much nothing (gear-wise) is expected to be looted at all from a monster, to "these are the things worth looting". They may have many other things on them, but if it's not "Gear" and it's not "Treasure" than it's left on the corpse. DMs are, of course, able to add whatever they like to the list. The MM doesn't need to.

Others have already discussed issues with how spellcasting is done, so why do it the way they did?

I can't imagine. There are essentially two schools: One that prefers spell names (presumably because they want to avoid clutter and to be sure what is a spell and what isn't and likely because they're good at memorizing what spells do) and one that would rather they take the space to tell us everything that a monster can do, without having to look things up.

What they're using, in particular for blocks like the Empyrean, seem to me to be the worst of both worlds.

I would think there should be some reason why, so it would be nice to know. Maybe if I knew, I would agree with their logic--but without knowing, I just can't justify some of the changes.

I agree.

Also, I realize this layout might cause issues with the "wide stat block", but in that case I would move the CR and XP to their own line (where Proficiency is) and move Proficiency and Initiatve down a line. Like this:

View attachment 393540

That's all right, but your other one is better, IMO.

I also don't like how they've doubled up the "Mod" and "Save". IMO it would be better if they leave the "Save" column blank unless it's different from the "Mod" column. Or come up with a little "ditto" graphic. The trouble with what they've done, is that it's actually harder to find the ones that are different. It's not a deal-breaker or anything, it's just inelegant.

 

[ezo]

Calling this confusion

It will be confusing to some new DMs I imagine. If the information is there, you have it; when they remove it, you have indecision.

You decide to have some Kuo-Toa not holding their shields. Do they have AC 13 or 11... you decide. There is no confusion here, there is no crisis. If you want them to have a lower AC which would be why they don't have their shields equipped during guard duty then just lower their AC.

Apparently it doesn't matter. Their AC is 13 always regardless of the sticky shield or not. Maybe the sticky shield isn't even actually a "shield"? I don't know if it impact their AC because it isn't there.

It matters because it is how the rules for mechanics, shields, AC, etc. function. The justifcation for "natural armor, shield" was there in 2014, so why remove it?

It isn't like this was a space saving decision or anything. Why have HP listed with dice and CON mod? We can all figure out what the HP come from just like the AC, right? So why have it??

If it was like this...

which made a stat block shorter, then I could at least guess why they removed the AC "notes". But, it isn't.

Does the horse have scraps of barding or are their bones reinforced with dark magic? Does it matter? The party isn't really going to loot rotting barding off a horse skeleton are they?

Yes. Are they going through an antimagic field? Does their AC drop if it is "reinforced with dark magic"?

I've had parties scrounge all sorts of things from creatures for numerous reasons and I am sure others have as well. Barding is expensive, so if a PC can equip his horse with "scraps of barding" to improve its AC, why wouldn't they???

Of course, we don't know if there are scraps of bard or if they grant an AC 12 + Dex, do we?

Yes, yes, yes... we can "choose" and "decide", but frankly enough of 5E is already "meh, we're just doing rulings over rules anyway... so let's go further and to "you decide" over mechanics.

And sure, it may not have hurt anything to add the text to the side. But... it is also rather trivial to run the math. 10+dex is normal unarmored AC, every DM knows that. 15-(10+dex) is pretty simple math. So they can tell "I need to to account for 3 pts of AC" and.... then they can do so. Maybe give the monster some armor, maybe give them some enhanced toughness. Either way works, and the DM does not need to descend into a pit of despair because WoTC didn't write "natural armor" next to the AC 15.

Who knows what new DMs will do? It isn't a pit of despair but it is, on the surface, nonsensical to make the change when the default from 2014 was to already have the info. No, it doesn't hurt anything (as far as I can see) to have it, so why take it out???

 

[ezo]

I also don't like how they've doubled up the "Mod" and "Save". IMO it would be better if they leave the "Save" column blank unless it's different from the "Mod" column. Or come up with a little "ditto" graphic. The trouble with what they've done, is that it's actually harder to find the ones that are different. It's not a deal-breaker or anything, it's just inelegant.

Yeah, this was a more minor point for myself as well. Given how rarely most creatures have save proficiencies, it does seem like a step backwards IMO.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Thanks. It isn't a big change. IIRC Level Up did the CR in the upper corner, but I might be thinking of a different 5E variant...

That's one thing that surprised me when I saw these new statblocks. When I did Twilight Fables a couple years ago, the overwhelming...and I do mean overwhelming...feedback was that people want to see the CR and Prof bonus called out and easily referenced. While I didn't put it in the statblock per se, I did put it on the upper right of the monster entry. I know several other publishers did something similar (like what you just did). So for WotC to not do that with 2024? Surprised me. Almost like they aren't in touch with how people modified 2014 to be more usable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah, this was a more minor point for myself as well. Given how rarely most creatures have save proficiencies, it does seem like a step backwards IMO.

I don't really like it either. Seemed too much "excel-like" to me. As a middle ground, I have them like this. Doesn't take up as much real estate, but it's still there

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't think there is any cause to list the weapons it uses for its attacks as part of its gear:

View attachment 393285

When you also consider other creatures who obviously have gear but then no listing for it:
View attachment 393286
(and I missed the entry for the Sticky Shield...)

Now, what is "strange" about the Strange Spear? The fact it lacks the versatile property but still does 1d8 unlike normal spears? Does that mean if I defeat a Kuo-toa I can pick up the spear and shield and use them, gaining the Sticky Shield feature for my PC?

Also, it is AC 13... but how? I guess it has a shield (given the Reaction feature), but no DEX mod. Does it have 11 AC naturally? Or 13? I have no idea if the shield is included or not.

At least with 2014 it was clearer:
View attachment 393287

Frankly, I don't understand why they made half the changes they did.

While I completely agreed, oh how I agree and then some, here’s a (only slightly jaded) perspective…

We know about the digital push & they had a team member responsible for providing feedback on new rules to make digital integration smoother.

If you want a digital monster to drop loot, say as part of an app game or an expanded subscription VTT, from a database/programming perspective, it makes sense to have a loot “line.”

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It isn't like this was a space saving decision or anything. Why have HP listed with dice and CON mod? We can all figure out what the HP come from just like the AC, right? So why have it??

I guessing it's because some people like to roll the monsters max hp rather than use the average. AC is static unlike that.

 

[dave2008]

I also don't like how they've doubled up the "Mod" and "Save". IMO it would be better if they leave the "Save" column blank unless it's different from the "Mod" column. Or come up with a little "ditto" graphic. The trouble with what they've done, is that it's actually harder to find the ones that are different. It's not a deal-breaker or anything, it's just inelegant.

I hear a lot of complaints about this one, but I actually like it. Now, if I need a save I just look at the save line and if I need a mod I look at the mod line. I don't have to figure anything out. From my perspective it is more elegant. But everyone is different and has different needs and different ways of processing information.

And I am not a fan of dropping the ability score like some have done. I use abilities scores and just having the mod is not enough for me. Plus, for me the ability score is a little bit of lore tucked into the stat block that I like.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guessing it's because some people like to roll the monsters max hp rather than use the average. AC is static unlike that.

I'm one of those. Also, it keeps players on their toes more and lends to more verisimilitude. Every minotaur skeleton shouldn't have 45 hit points. Doing so gets bland fast for me.

 

[ezo]

I guessing it's because some people like to roll the monsters max hp rather than use the average. AC is static unlike that.

Yeah, I know, but I also know people like to know how a creature has the AC it has without jumping through the hoops (however simple it might be for some!) to do it.

My point was, if the AC is a number and how you get it doesn't seem to be important, why is the HP calculation important. If Ogres have HP 59 listed, you want to give one 62, another 70, yet another 58, or whatever just do it. Roll it by doing 2d8+50 or whatever. According to some here, just "come up with whatever works for you" and do it. Why does it have to be listed?

When push comes to shove, if AC doesn't have to be defined how it is achieved, neither does HP, or anything apparently...

I'm one of those. Also, it keeps players on their toes more and lends to more verisimilitude. Every minotaur skeleton shouldn't have 45 hit points. Doing so gets bland fast for me.

Sure, but then does every minotaur skeleton have AC 13? Some don't have different DEX scores than others?