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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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...


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

I agree with you. I like variation there too. I just don't know if it has to be detailed in the stat block, but I admit I might be a minority. For example, I started in 1981, and the statblock just had the AC. Orcs had AC 6. Of course they had varying equipment, and we just adjusted as necessary--easy peasy. Ogres had AC 5. We just assumed it was thicker skin or something.

I suppose the easy thing to do with HP variation is to just give a range and be done with it (40-50 hp).

 

[ezo]

I agree with you. I like variation there too. I just don't know if it has to be detailed in the stat block, but I admit I might be a minority. For example, I started in 1981, and the statblock just had the AC. Orcs had AC 6. Of course they had varying equipment, and we just adjusted as necessary--easy peasy. Ogres had AC 5. We just assumed it was thicker skin or something.

If it wasn't in the 2014 book, it wouldn't bother me not being in the 2024 book... but it was in the 2014 book and so far I see no reason why it was removed.

AD&D was a different beast entirely. Causes for AC were summarized:

or provided in the monster descriptions. They didn't have DEX scores (other than Deities and Demigods IIRC) so we didn't know how much of their AC was due to DEX.

Now, if 5E is moving back in that direction... fine. Maybe something will be detailed in the MM about what AC is. But then you might as well remove ability scores from creatures again and just give them blanket HD like earlier editions.

I suppose the easy thing to do with HP variation is to just give a range and be done with it (40-50 hp).

Yep. Minotaur skeleton using 2d10+34 is easier to roll for variable HP than 6d10+12, but d10+40 works. IMO, that little variation (a few points here or there) isn't worth the hassle since damage from PCs is the variable already.

But in the same respect since PCs are rolling to hit, I've never seen any point in varying the AC a point or two in either direction. Significant (4 points or more) due to a boss is a different thing but then the players can, and should for transparency IMO, expect a reason why--even if I don't tell them until much later.

 

[Zaukrie]

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...


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

Agreed, none of those need to be defined.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

A new DM isn't someone who owns and read the 2014 MM and has the 2024 MM and is comparing them side by side to see that the information was removed.

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?

If the rules for shields apply... then apply them to the shield. You say you don't "know" the impact of the shield, but that is my entire point. It could be reasonably interpreted either way. Either they have a +1 Natural Armor or a +3 Natural Armor. Considering their appearance as thinly scaled fish, and their status as low CR enemies, and the fact that they DO have a shield in their statblock, well, I lean towards them having either a +1 or leather armor.

If you want the shield to not matter, then it doesn't matter. But you are looking for an objective truth, and that is not what I am proposing.

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

No, because that isn't how antimagic fields function. But that's a problem with that spell. (See Also: Why does a skeleton animated by magic still function in an antimagic field at all)

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???

1) Most PC's don't have horses
2) Scraps of barding are not barding and not appropriate equipment. They can work on a skeleton horse, because the pain of such poorly fitted and wrecked gear does not hinder them.

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???

I'm sure if you sat down in the meeting room where they had the discussion to decide to take out the information, then you would know. I don't understand what answer you expect me to give. I wasn't there, I don't know why they decided the way they decided.

Did they decide based on internal playtest data? Did they decide off of deadlines for writing? Did they decide just to upset you personally because they knew they could ruin your life? I don't know. Why would I know? My claim isn't that I perfectly understand the decisions they made. My claim is that this is really a molehill, because it just isn't going to cause the issues you are worried about.

 

[Lord Twig]

I have read this whole thread and I am a little baffled that there is any argument here. People are saying that they don't like that they removed the explaination for what AC represents (I don't like it either) and other people are saying it doesn't bother them, and you can just make it up, so it is not needed.

So... Why does this need to be argued? If you don't need it, great! Don't dump on those of us that like to have that explaination. For me it would speed things up. I don't want to have to stop and make up a reason why a creature has the AC it does.

My players will absolutely ask me, "Why does a skeleton horse have a highter AC? Shouldn't it be easier to hit since it is bigger?" I should be able to just glance at the Skeleton Warhorse AC, see that it has natural armor, and just tell the players, "It's tougher than a normal skeleton."

Right now I would glance and say, "I don't know, it doesn't say. I guess it is just tougher?" That doesn't feel good to me. Sure I can make it up... I just did... but I shouldn't have to. If you don't care or don't mind making it up, that's great for you. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there for the rest of us.

And the Skeleton Warhorse is the easy one. The Kuo-Toa is trickier. I could totally see that stopping my game for five minutes while we try to figure it out. You might think it shouldn't take that long, but everyone is going to want to give their opinion on it. So it will take up time. And it was completely avoidable! They just had to NOT CHANGE IT!

 

[Lord Twig]

On a different topic regarding the stat blocks. Did they nerf the creatures?! I thought they would buff them up since they made characters tougher, but some of them seem weaker. The Gelatinous Cube is weaker.

Am I the only one that is disappointed that the creatures aren't tougher?

 

[Azzy]

On a different topic regarding the stat blocks. Did they nerf the creatures?! I thought they would buff them up since they made characters tougher, but some of them seem weaker. The Gelatinous Cube is weaker.

Am I the only one that is disappointed that the creatures aren't tougher?

From my understanding, some monsters got tougher while others got weaker. They had said that the they were modifying the monsters to be more consistent for their CR.

 

[Lord Twig]

From my understanding, some monsters got tougher while others got weaker. They had said that the they were modifying the monsters to be more consistent for their CR.

Well fingers crossed that it is more tougher than weaker. My players are waltzing through my creatures, even when I add more of them to try to adjust.

 

[Stalker0]

I thought they would buff them up since they made characters tougher, but some of them seem weaker. The Gelatinous Cube is weaker.

Am I the only one that is disappointed that the creatures aren't tougher?

Looking at the higher CRs, the creatures are definately tougher (we can argue if they are now "tough enough" but a definite boost).

I don't think the normal 5e monster arguments hold up against from CRs 4 and below. Parties below 5th level can be taken out pretty easily, and so I can respect toning down certain monsters they felt might have had too much death potential. Again at those levels I can respect it.

Its at the 5th level and above where PCs power spike noticeable and their ability to die starts to drop drastically (its often at this point where insta death leaves the realm of possibility), and so that is where monsters do need to toughen up.

 

[AlViking]

I have read this whole thread and I am a little baffled that there is any argument here. People are saying that they don't like that they removed the explaination for what AC represents (I don't like it either) and other people are saying it doesn't bother them, and you can just make it up, so it is not needed.

So... Why does this need to be argued? If you don't need it, great! Don't dump on those of us that like to have that explaination. For me it would speed things up. I don't want to have to stop and make up a reason why a creature has the AC it does.

My players will absolutely ask me, "Why does a skeleton horse have a highter AC? Shouldn't it be easier to hit since it is bigger?" I should be able to just glance at the Skeleton Warhorse AC, see that it has natural armor, and just tell the players, "It's tougher than a normal skeleton."

Right now I would glance and say, "I don't know, it doesn't say. I guess it is just tougher?" That doesn't feel good to me. Sure I can make it up... I just did... but I shouldn't have to. If you don't care or don't mind making it up, that's great for you. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there for the rest of us.

And the Skeleton Warhorse is the easy one. The Kuo-Toa is trickier. I could totally see that stopping my game for five minutes while we try to figure it out. You might think it shouldn't take that long, but everyone is going to want to give their opinion on it. So it will take up time. And it was completely avoidable! They just had to NOT CHANGE IT!

I understand the logic behind it. Which is not to say you're wrong we all have preferences. First of all I have never once been asked why an AC is so high people just accept that it is and being bigger has never been a reason something is easier to hit. Now you can say that the bones are extremely tough or the horse has rusty barding or barding made of the leg bones of previous victims or spectral armor or just about anything. Like much of the game the DM has to make stuff up and fill in the fluff the rules cannot and don't need to tell you everything. Even if they had kept the barding scraps note you could still get arguments because why should falling apart scraps of armor provide any protection?

Meanwhile it almost never has any mechanical impact and the number of people who actually care from my experience is quite small. I understand that you disagree but after a while we on this forum understand why people disagree and it doesn't matter because we didn't write the book.