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

[Micah Sweet]

I will disagree with you there.
Even if you know the spells or pay the premium for the DDB, you're still tracking spell slots, complex effects - all for a monster that's dead in 2-3 rounds. It's pointless, convoluted design - and I hate it.

I disagree. The increase in verisimilitude makes it worth it to me. Abstracting stuff like that for just one side drives me crazy.

 

[Clint_L]

I will disagree with you there.
Even if you know the spells or pay the premium for the DDB, you're still tracking spell slots, complex effects - all for a monster that's dead in 2-3 rounds. It's pointless, convoluted design - and I hate it.

Where it really sucks isn't for a monster that's dead in 2-3 rounds. It's for a BBEG like a lich, for whom complex spell casting options are a feature, not a flaw. I mean, look at the new version of Vecna, who is reduced to relying on attacking with a dagger for most of his offence, like a rogue, and then has a few predictable spell-like options. Not a fan. This from, basically, the god of magic.

Usually I am in favour of less complexity, but not in this case.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Basic Needs:
A meaningful CR system

That is not an issue of the MM but the DMG. Since that book is coming out first you should have your answer before this book comes out.

No PC-like spellcasting

I don't have an issue with this either way.

Minions

Not a requirement in our game and this book will not have them so you can skip it.

Good tactical options

This is highly subjective. Personally, I like that 5e is not overly reliant on tactical options, but I understand some people want it.

Pre-example encounters

Can you clarify, I don't understand what a "pre-example" is vs simply an "example" encounter. Regardless, not something we feel we need. I would rather more monsters, lore, and art than example encounters. Again, that is DMG thing to me.

Essentially, if it doesn't have each of these components covered, I won't get it since I already have other sources that cover this ground.

Then your in luck. It will not have all of those so you don't need to worry about it. Which is helpful since I didn't think you were playing 5e anymore!

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Where it really sucks isn't for a monster that's dead in 2-3 rounds. It's for a BBEG like a lich, for whom complex spell casting options are a feature, not a flaw. I mean, look at the new version of Vecna, who is reducing to relying on attacking with a dagger for most of his offence, like a rogue, and then has a few predictable spell-like options. Not a fan. This from, basically, the god of magic.

Usually I am in favour of less complexity, but not in this case.

While agree with your general sentiment, the official Vecna for 5e is Vecna that archmage, not Vecna the god. That is his pre-ascension statblock. I do wonder if we get an updated statblock in the forthcoming adventure

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Personally, I most looking forward to the new art. If some of the dragon previews they dropped last year are previews of the MM art I am all in!

 

[el-remmen]

you're still tracking spell slots, complex effects - all for a monster that's dead in 2-3 rounds.

Then don't.

I mean, if it is really going to be dead in 2 to 3 rounds then why bother tracking that stuff - but if not, or if you are the type to whom having that stuff is important, then do. Either way - given your 2 to 3 rounds context - there will be little to no difference in actual game play.

 

[Retreater]

I disagree. The increase in verisimilitude makes it worth it to me. Abstracting stuff like that for just one side drives me crazy.

Where it really sucks isn't for a monster that's dead in 2-3 rounds. It's for a BBEG like a lich, for whom complex spell casting options are a feature, not a flaw. I mean, look at the new version of Vecna, who is reducing to relying on attacking with a dagger for most of his offence, like a rogue, and then has a few predictable spell-like options. Not a fan. This from, basically, the god of magic.

Usually I am in favour of less complexity, but not in this case.

For me (and this is only "for me"), I want the stat blocks clear, simple, and concise expressly for the purposes of running an encounter. All the fluff, lore, and characterization can have things like "the lich typically has a simulacrum and uses scrying to prepare its lair against intruders." Or whatever.
And you know what else, its power and characterization doesn't have tied to a specific spell. I'm okay if a lich can do things that PCs can't do. It makes the game feel deeper and more mysterious.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me (and this is only "for me"), I want the stat blocks clear, simple, and concise expressly for the purposes of running an encounter. All the fluff, lore, and characterization can have things like "the lich typically has a simulacrum and uses scrying to prepare its lair against intruders." Or whatever.
And you know what else, its power and characterization doesn't have tied to a specific spell. I'm okay if a lich can do things that PCs can't do. It makes the game feel deeper and more mysterious.

But for me there has to be a reason why that lich can do something the PCs can't. Even if the PCs don't know the reason, the GM should and the PCs should be potentially able to find out, even follow the path to power if they're willing to pay the price the lich did.

It can be mysterious to the players. It shouldn't IMO be mysterious to the GM.

 

[JEB]

As noted in the poll thread, this is the only book that might change my mind about skipping 2024(-2025?) 5e. But the bar is set very high, since it has to be better than the 2014 version, and that might be my favorite core monster book (only 2e's Monstrous Manual competes).

 

[Parmandur]

The book I am looking most forward to.

User name checks out.