Best and Worst of the Revised Monster Manual

Best: Flumph. Worst: Primeval Owlbear. That was easy! But if I look at the book as a whole and what it does for D&D? That’s more complex!

Overall Assessment: A Better Monster Manual

In my Major Takeaways video review I shared that I believe the 2024/2025 Monster Manual is better than the 2014 Monster Manual and I recommend buying it. However, this recommendation is focused on table utility. Plenty of my designer friends have serious reservations with the ’24 MM and I find their arguments convincing. Here is the best and worst of the revised MM.

Needs Work: Loss of Lore

My designer friends who find the 2024 MM inferior to 2014? They often mention the loss of lore and how it impacts new and casual DMs. 2014 is often mentioned favorably by DMs who were inspired by its lore. The lore immersed DMs in the monster’s nature, what their goals might be, and provided ideas we could use to create memorable encounters. 2024 seems to forget this, providing far fewer words devoted to describing the monster. The words we do find have less useful or inspiring information, particularly when it comes to actionable information for creating encounters. I underscore the importance of lore in this video about the Ettin and its tactics. Fixing This: I’ll take great lore over a second monster stat block, but even 4E’s Monster Vault managed to weave inspiring lore around multiple stat blocks. This is really about making it a priority to create lore that spurs creativity and helps us portray the typical monster. We know individuals will differ, but give us that rich base lore.

Best: Stat Block Improvements

Every single monster stat block was revised, even those that worked perfectly fine. Improvements include Initiative pulled out into the stat block, tighter wording, and more actions that help a DM create flavorful fights.

I am particularly fond of monsters having fewer trap actions, where using a particular action won’t generally be significantly worse than another. Spell lists are also shorter and better for many monsters, with just a few options that are generally equivalent in damage.

Even Better: The saving throw format with big colored boxes eats up too much space. If I were to make something stand out, it would be attack and damage values, not saves. In fact, I could work with a single attack bonus to apply to all attacks and a single save DC. These could then be pulled out and placed next to initiative, or placed by the Actions header, making it easy to see them. I know that’s not for everyone, but I think players will seldom notice the few times an attack or DC is slightly higher or lower. Spellcasting blocks should list the spell attack (strangely, a few monsters list these, as if the team started to add them and forgot to remove these).

Needs Work: Spells vs Other Actions

Stat blocks still have a lot of complexity. Take a look at the Pirate Admiral, attacking three times with Scimitar or Pistol in any combination. Should you use the Pistol to deal 28 damage, or instead the Scimitar to deal 16 plus 7 poison, plus then one of two conditions, poisoned or charmed? The multi-tiered decision is not going to be easy for many DMs to make at the table. (Yes, I know some DMs, myself included, like this complexity for their own games. Most DMs I meet don’t like this level of decision analysis during play.)

Far more problematic is figuring out what a monster with spells should do. I covered the Mage and the Lich in a recent video. Should the Mage use its multiattack for three Arcane Burst Attacks? Should it cast Fly or Invisibility? Should it cast a level 4 Fireball? Cone of Cold? And how does this weave into its Misty Step Bonus Action? The Mage has four At Will spells and four limited use spells. The Lich? 2 Traits, Mutliattack with 2 possible Actions, 1 Reaction, 3 Legendary Actions, 8 At-Will spells (including leveled up spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt), and 7 limited use spells. That’s a lot.

It is particularly challenging because spells and other actions aren’t obviously equivalent. Should a Lich use its Eldritch Burst or Paralyzing touch three times? Or Fireball at level 5? Or Chain Lightning? Or Power Word Kill? The choice actually makes tremendous difference, especially if the party has 4+ members and you can get them in an area of effect spell. When I analyzed the math of the revised monster manual, the difference between assuming two targets for spells and assuming a number based on the size of the area of effect? That Lich can deal 183 damage per round if we get just 2 targets in our spells, but an amazing 310 if we can get an amount based on the AoE’s size (more info in my videos). This is the new “trap” of the MM. The challenge of a monster will vary based on how well the DM understands AoE, spells, and can compare damage output. All of this requires looking up spells in another book prior to play.

Fixing this: Some DMs will like the verisimilitude and flexibility of spell lists. But with more than half of DMs starting with 5E, the game thrives when it can attract new and casual DMs. Those will likely prefer easy to run monsters. There are many ways to add complexity and tactical play to an encounter, but you can’t undo the complexity in a stat block. The complexity seen in the lich should be a rarity. And it’s worth asking whether a mage really gets useful flexibility from multiple utility spells in the hands of most DMs. Perhaps a list of possible additional or substitute spells could be provided outside the stat block? Another option is for the text near the spellcaster to provide tactical advice.

Needs Work: Unclear Wording

Similarly, there is still a fair lack of clarity in monster stat blocks. Unless you watch a video where Jeremy Crawford and Wes Schneider discuss the Primeval Owlbear, you would probably never guess the point of its 5’ fly speed. This, they said, allows it to jump out and then glide at the end. Does it? Their explanation is outside of anything defined by the 2024 rules for flying, falling, or movement. Can any creature with a fly speed jump any distance and then fly out of it at the last instance? According to that one video, yes. According to the rules? No.

Also unclear is its multiattack, where it can make two Ravage attacks, which deal more damage and knock the target prone if “the owlbear moved 20+ feet straight toward it immediately before the hit.” This seems to mean that only the first attack will qualify, but nothing in the MM’s introduction makes it clear. But… what is the point of the design? Why make it so convoluted? With a speed of 40’, is this creature supposed to want to move, attack once, move again (provoking an attack, perhaps at disadvantage from the prone target), and finish its second attack? It seems like a strange thing for an owlbear to do… but I was wrong about its fly speed too.

Multiattack is unclear in other cases too. Some monsters state Multiattack like the Bandit Captain: “The bandit makes two attacks, using Scimitar and Pistol in any combination.” Other monsters are like the Behir, saying “The behir makes one Bite attack and uses Constrict.” The book’s introduction unfortunately doesn’t clarify whether the order is intended. As a cunning creature, the Behir should want to Constrict first, so as to possibly grapple and restrain the target, granting advantage on its Bite. But it appears the order is fixed, since it lacks the “any combination” wording seen in the Bandit Captain. Maybe.

There are many other examples of unclear wording, such as the size of the Blob of Annihilation, as I covered here. The size is gargantuan, which has an undefined maximum size – and it really matters for the tactics of this monster. Gelatinous Cube has updated language that in attempt to codify what it means to be in the cube, ends up harder to understand.

Fixing This: It is likely the MM was behind schedule and rushed. This book needed more developmental and editing work to ensure clear wording.

Best: Improved Monster Math

The 2014 MM provided many monsters that simply dealt too little damage. Wizards never revealed its secret way of creating monsters, but it is clear that the method by which they assessed monster features and concluded damage should be lowered was faulty. I dug deep into the math changes in this MM. Now, monsters have special features and still deal the expected damage. This can sometimes be a bit too strong, but it’s better than providing lackluster monsters. Adjustments to initiative, boosting all legendary creatures (not just dragons), and using more powerful spells all improve the ease with which a DM can challenge their players. It will take time to assess the combination of stronger characters, tougher encounter guidelines, and tougher monsters.

Best: Reversing Course on Multiverse

The Monsters of the Multiverse book made big claims it would fix monsters, but it did very little to truly improve our games. Worse, it added a number of “improvements” no one asked for. 2024 does a nice job of stepping back those unwanted changes, such as the “typically x” wording for alignment and the unnecessary comments that undead didn’t breathe or eat. The new book is also more consistent in its approach to spells, even if it retreats from the easier-to-run spell actions found in that book.

Needs Work: Help Us Create

DMs have an insatiable desire to buy monster books. This won’t be lessened and may actually be increased if WotC teaches players how to create monsters and monster variants. The 2024 DMG should have had actual monster creation guidelines, as 2014 did. The 2024 MM should balance providing new variant monsters (several goblins, several pirates, etc.) with teaching DMs how to create variants.

Fixing This: Monster books have changed little over the years (though see the Mastering Dungeons review of The Monster Overhaul) and maybe it’s time for a change. Sure, provide an encyclopedia of monsters… but what if the book taught DMs how to create variants, how to create encounters, provided ideas on lairs and monster encounter mixes, and so on? More of a toolkit and less of an encyclopedia? When we created Forge of Foes we were trying to fill in these gaps… but monster books could touch on this kind of advice that DMs need.

Final Thoughts

A few other points, since folks have asked:

• The new alphabetical order is bizarrely inconsistent and arguable inferior to 2014.
• I discussed the omissions of intelligent humanoids, such as orcs, here.
• I personally find changes to monster types are seldom useful and create more confusion than it is worth.
• The loss of cool lair actions is unfortunate.
• The appendices should always list the monster’s CR and page number.
• The addition of gear seems superfluous and inconsistent. 2024 also moves from logical armor to sometimes having an AC that doesn’t mirror worn armor – I’m okay with that, but others will dislike it.

I still contend the 2024 Monster is worth buying for DMs that own 2014, and its stat blocks are overall a welcome improvement. But the 2014 book had a more sound approach to creating a great book. 2024 has surprising flaws given the goals of the Wizards team for this revision. I hope future monster work from the team will improve on the issues we see in this seemingly rushed book.