D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)

[SlyFlourish]

It's a full year away so who can say what about it, but I am far less concerned about what the 2024 Monster Manual does than the PHB. I've been fixing 2014 D&D monsters for ten years and still enjoying the game but when stuff hits the player side, it takes a lot more work to socialize fixing it (if one ever really does).

By the time the 2024 Monster Manual comes out, we'll have so many core monster books – A5e, 2014 D&D, and Tales of the Valiant all will have core monsters in it and Flee Mortals has a lot of comparable monsters even if they aren't at the same CR or a perfect match. The cool bit is that we can use whichever flavor of monster we prefer to use. Want simple monsters that use the more modern spellcasting flavor? Use Tales of the Valiant (for a sample, check out the Black Flag reference document). Want more tactical monsters that work together? Use Flee Mortals. Want better balanced monsters that include spells and update the 2014 monsters? Use A5e (my personal favorite right now). Want to build your own monsters on the fly? Use Forge of Foes (ahem).

I'm interested in the Monster Manual but I'm far less concerned about it being perfectly right than I am the PHB. There are so many monsters and ways to build and modify monsters that I think things will be fine even if they're not perfect.

Now if they completely dork with the CR system, changing monster power outside of current bounds, and thus making all previous monsters incompatible, that would be terrible but I don't expect that to be the case. It hurts them as much as it hurts everyone else.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I think my DM would agree it was not as innovative as he hoped. He basically said he can do a better job.

Every DM says that about every monster book. The monster design in your head is always better than the one that came from someone else.

 

[Reynard]

I don't really want to put words in his month, but IIRC his issues where:

• Not enough art
• designs were not better or more interesting than what he makes himself
• villian actions were a disappointment and step back from legendary actions
• Didn't expand on / utilize the design space of mythic monsters
• implementation of "roles" felt thin and underdeveloped

EDIT: FYI, he backed the kickstarter so it was guess what he would be getting. He couldn't peruse a finished book and determine before he bought.

Okay. I mean, everyone has their own thresholds, and that's fine. but I find it weird that someone could be disappointed by Flee Mortals and still expect MM2025 to be something they would like given the evidence of Monsters of the Multiverse. it is totally okay to not like what MCDM did, of course, but MMM certainly did not elevate WotC monster design in any appreciable way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Have you never bought something because you liked the designer? And were then disappointed after perusing it in more detail?

Anything by John Wick after 7th Sea 1e ended.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are at least two schools of thought on this:

1: "give them a full list of spells cuz it's realistic/useful for all situations, not just combat"
2: "give them in full detail what's relevant for combat, that's when I'm going to need their statblock otherwise they'll just use whatever spells I think they'd have. I don't want to have to flip around the spell section for it all, just print it on the statblock."

When we had the 2014 MM, you had folks like Matt Colville saying "I really don't need this huge list of spells that are never going to be used, 5e combat lasts for ~4 rounds and they're going to use their most powerful things; why do I need to know that they have sleep and charm person?"

And now that they've gone the other way, the vocal folk on the other side are speaking up. I will say that they SHOULD be stated whether or not they count as spells, or can be counterspelled, etc. I'm assuming that they don't state that based on folks comments here.

It just goes to show that you can't please all of the people all of the time!

a5e does something interesting though, which is BOTH. Their lich has a list of spells, and the combat spells' description are presented in the statblock, and also has (3e term) spell-like abilities like arc lightning and not-counterspell; afaik the latter can't be counterspelled.
Considering how concerned the a5e crew was about page space etc. in the AG, I'm surprised that they printed all those combat spell details in the entry... BUT it's appreciated.

One of the best monster books I've ever seen, for any system.

 

[Reynard]

Every DM says that about every monster book. The monster design in your head is always better than the one that came from someone else.

I have done a bunch of professional monster design and I lean heavily toward the A5E philosophy: give them cool abilities and put the important stuff right there in the stat block. I like MCDM's stuff too, but Coville's preferences are a little more 4E-ish than the mainstream, I think.

But I think everyone can agree that WotC 5E monster design has been their weak point from day 1.

 

[mamba]

I think my DM would agree it was not as innovative as he hoped. He basically said he can do a better job.

sounds like he likes monsters a certain way, whether that is actually better or just personal preference is another matter.

Everyone likes the monsters they create best, no one intentionally creates ones they do not like

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, the new take on non-categorical alphabetical order is weird and off-putting to me.

I wish they would just commit to being alphabetical or not. Putting necromancer under W for wizard is just, well, just stupid IMHO.

 

[Divine2021]

Nothing more to add, except that I’m probably only going to buy the DMG without a second thought. I’ll wait to see how the PhB and MM reviews—in the case of the MM, it’ll be hard to top the Tome of Beasts and Flee Mortals, especially considering WoTC’s recent track record of gutting all sense of lore and place with their creatures.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yep, my DM regretted purchasing Flee Mortals. He wasn't impressed. However, I know he plans on getting the new MM for the art lone (if it lives up to his hopes).

Oh, I really like Flee Mortals.....it's just quite as innovative as I expected (frankly, no idea what I expected). It's got great ideas, and I love the new fluff (which you can use or ignore).

What did the DM think they were getting? I'm not sure how you could be disappointed with it.

Have you never bought something because you liked the designer? And were then disappointed after perusing it in more detail?

I like the lore from Flee Mortals! I like FM! more than the 5e monster manual. But I like A5E best.
FM! is a bit over-engineered. I compared the Ogre from 5e, a5e, and MCDM. A5e is best for me- cool mechanical stuff, but not too heavy.

And their monster entries are the most USEFUL for me when I'm in the middle of running a game- little charts of signs that there are ogres in the area, what ogres might be doing, same loot for encounters, names, etc.

You can use them all ofc- but when on the fly I go to grab a monster, and I look at an ogre for each, I end up using the a5e ones cuz they're the most useful (cooler than 5e) and don't have a ton of mechanical stuff to parse through (FM!).