What do you think?
Rate this book
Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual
386 pages, Hardcover
First published February 25, 2025
34 people are currently reading
127 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
Read
July 18, 2025Needs 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.
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.
Read
February 15, 2025Honestly, this was worth $50 for the art alone.
March 19, 2025
The art of the book is enough to make you enjoy the book and keep you waiting to see what comes next.
The changes to the creatures and mechanics are for the better, at least in my opinion. The stat blocks contain more information and are easier to interpret than before. Almost all the monsters have their own description and artwork, as well as other additional information such as habitats, treasures, etc.
I think it's a good book, and it is better than the first one from 2014. The addition of new creatures of the same type, for example bandits, assassins, dragons, mages, of various CR is a wise choice.
On the other hand, the book has less lore than its predecessor, but it is true that with more monsters it is difficult to find room between the pages to add extensive lore. While the lack of extensive lore might be upsetting for some people, the lore and information from this book encourages the reader to fill in the gaps with their own interpretations, making them easy to adapt to your own settings and games.
Overall, I'm very happy with this new book and I'm looking forward to throwing to my players some of the new monsters in my campaign, like the Blob of Annihilation or the Arch-Hag.
The changes to the creatures and mechanics are for the better, at least in my opinion. The stat blocks contain more information and are easier to interpret than before. Almost all the monsters have their own description and artwork, as well as other additional information such as habitats, treasures, etc.
I think it's a good book, and it is better than the first one from 2014. The addition of new creatures of the same type, for example bandits, assassins, dragons, mages, of various CR is a wise choice.
On the other hand, the book has less lore than its predecessor, but it is true that with more monsters it is difficult to find room between the pages to add extensive lore. While the lack of extensive lore might be upsetting for some people, the lore and information from this book encourages the reader to fill in the gaps with their own interpretations, making them easy to adapt to your own settings and games.
Overall, I'm very happy with this new book and I'm looking forward to throwing to my players some of the new monsters in my campaign, like the Blob of Annihilation or the Arch-Hag.
July 27, 2025
The 2024 Monster Manual is a collection of monsters and their stat blocks for Dungeons and Dragons.
Does exactly what it's supposed to. I enjoyed the brief lore bits before each creature, but even with those, it really is mostly just a reference book. But a good reference book.
3 stars.
Does exactly what it's supposed to. I enjoyed the brief lore bits before each creature, but even with those, it really is mostly just a reference book. But a good reference book.
3 stars.
February 21, 2025
The art is great. Tons of reworked and variant stat blocks.
March 16, 2025
Great art, great monster, great manual! Now I have everything to get on that new journey!
February 18, 2025
There’s some cool new variants like all the types of pirates and the types of pirates but a lot of classic monsters are taken out like all the Drow and Duegar variants.
The new per-day soellcasting instead of spell slots for soellcasters is also underwhelming.
The new per-day soellcasting instead of spell slots for soellcasters is also underwhelming.
Read
March 7, 2025Consider it a short story collection
February 25, 2025
A marginal improvement on the original. I wish they had taken bigger risks. I love new boss versions of low-level monsters. I miss orcs and drow. I love the deprecation of non-magical damage resistance, the smaller spell lists, the fewer dice rolls for the DM. I miss monsters with unique play patterns, instead of every single creature having a multiattack appropriate to their CR. I love the new art design. I miss different damage types, instead of force damage becoming super popular. Et cetera.
March 19, 2025
Overall very nice - amazing artwork and I find it inspiring that some of the previously humanoid monsters have changed creature type, just adds more flavour. I am in two minds about organisation - makes looking up monsters easier, but I'd really like all the dragons or elementals etc. in one place. I also feel like the text prioritizes flavour over law, but that isn't necessarily a minus.
March 27, 2025
Como una niña pequeña leyendo el libro. Tengo un millón de post it’s en las páginas preparando historias en las que apunto historias en las que me gustaría incluir a las criaturas. A veces humanizándolas otras usándolas como villanos o aliados.
Este es mi primer libro sobre las criaturas que he leído como dm y el nivel de fascinación es algo
Este es mi primer libro sobre las criaturas que he leído como dm y el nivel de fascinación es algo
March 15, 2025
Literally one of the best books I’ve ever read. You go in thinking it’s a textbook, and come out with all of these stories and comedies and pure D&D silliness.
March 28, 2025
Best Monster Manual yet, the art is beautifully done.
April 18, 2025
Excellent upgrade for the 2025 rules. The art in particular is spectacular for fans.
April 28, 2025
good adaptation
May 12, 2025
I don’t have another edition to compare this to but flipping through it had my imagination going wild and a big smile on my face
August 22, 2025
More, and more interesting, monsters than the last version, though I miss the drow and generally prefer the older art.
November 11, 2025
The art is an upgrade compared to 2014 but I preferred how it was organized in that one
November 16, 2025
I’m a sucker for bestiaries and the artwork in this monster manual is absolutely beautiful.
February 25, 2025
Is this book a joke? The art is nice, but the content is baffling.
Where in the world are orcs!?
Female satyr? Male medusas and dryads? *smacks forehead*
Good lord...what in the world has happened to WoTC. Brain dead.
Where in the world are orcs!?
Female satyr? Male medusas and dryads? *smacks forehead*
Good lord...what in the world has happened to WoTC. Brain dead.
March 9, 2025
Why in the world are the various dragons scattered throughout the book. "D" for dragon. Look into it, WoTC. This is the worst monster manual of them all.
March 4, 2025
Great art for all the creatures!
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews