D&D (2024) Monster Manual Organisation

[Parmandur]

Shrieker, Gas Spore and Violet Fungus are all grouped, but not with Myconids. And iirc the Violet Fungus has two types under Fungus.

Myconoids may be a "fungus" in terms of biology, but in game terms they are not a fungal hazard, they are people.

 

[Dalamar]

Shrieker, Gas Spore and Violet Fungus are all grouped, but not with Myconids. And iirc the Violet Fungus has two types under Fungus.

I am not sure if you agree with me or disagree with me.

If you disagree, do you think monitor lizards should be grouped with lizardfolk, and sharks with sahuagin?

 

[Amphytrion]

Not all categories are the same. "Science fiction novels" and "Amphibians" are vote categories, but not in the same way.

Sure? Against my better judgment, I shall assume good faith from you in this response:

Our categories aren't different. They're the same: all subtypes of a larger monster type. They all divide monster statblocks, rather than books or animals. Your example refers to two categories of entirely different broader things.

What differentiates the monster statblocks in your mind?

You might not think the logic is coherent, yet it is. The category takes precedence when the stat blocks are either CR variants or a group that would be together normally. Ao different Priests or Slaadi are grouped together, while Gold Dragons and Black Dragons are not.

This is materially false, see but a few examples below:

• The Arch Hag is a CR variant of hag, but it's not grouped with other hags. This is especially confusing because Archmage and Archpriest are grouped with their respective categories.
• The goblinoids are normally encountered together, yet they're also not grouped together. Why?
• Angels are CR variants, but they're not grouped together.
• Demons/Devils are both CR variants and typically encountered together, yet they're not grouped together.

Then there are outliers which are clearly remnants of a set-in-place organization before the actual statblocks were done. I'm thinking here of the celestials that are inexplicably in the segregated animals section of the book.

Just because you haven't perceived the logic yet does not make it illogical.

This is both obvious and a two-way street. Just because you're confident you have divined some clarity evident to you and only you, that does not make it real. It is uncharitable for either of us type this sort of statement, however.

Based on what...?

See above, or one of my prior responses in the earliest days of this thread. Why do you think it's useful at the table?

 

[Voadam]

Demons are way different, being literally all over the place. A Vrock and a Balpr are just different.

I would disagree.

Balors in the 5e 13 MM are "Figures of ancient and terrible evil, balors rule as generals over demonic armies, yearning to seize power while destroying any creatures that oppose them[/B]." while "Vrocks are dull-witted, capricious fiends that live only to create pain and carnage".

Mostly both are engines of carnage and destruction.

So the big difference is general who likes to destroy versus mid level carnage demon. The role of general is different but more like having a hobgoblin general and a hobgoblin legionnaire.

The situations where you would want to use a vrock or balor as a DM I would think are more likely to be based on CR and the fact that they are demons than the other specifics of the individual demon types.

My first thought was as a DM having a demon summoner who can summon a demon of X CR, so you would want to have them together for flipping through to see details and compare specifics of ones with similar CRs (vrocks can fly, hezrou cannot, etc). If you are powerful enough to summon a vrock as your attack beast or guardian instead of a dretch you do so. If you are an archmage demon summoner and you can flat out summon a balor instead you would.

Second situation I thought of would be something where a portal has allowed a demonic invasion so you want different types of demons of the appropriate CR for your chaotic horde. Third would be something in the abyss where you want demons to predominate but I would also generally expect mixes of demons and not just vrocks and only vrocks (although an aerial migration of a giant horde/flock of vrocks would also be cool).

Since D&D does work to make demons a distinct thematic group for the blood war and for alignment and such compared to devils or yugoloths (yugoloths depending on edition), grouping them as such for the DM to use them as thematic groups makes more sense to me.

It is good they have the table at the end, but it is less useful for trying to compare individual demons than if their entries were grouped together on the page.

 

[Cadence]

Myconoids may be a "fungus" in terms of biology, but in game terms they are not a fungal hazard, they are people.

I like that distinction.

The Violet Fungus Necrohulk has a 7 Int, 14 Wis, and 10 Cha, when does something become more than a fungal hazard? (Even if that isn't, it is special in that it comes form a fungal hazard and so I can see listing it there).

I guess I am still back in my 1e MM mode where Gas Spore (fake beholder) and Shrieker are exceptionally different.

 

[Cadence]

I am not sure if you agree with me or disagree with me.

If you disagree, do you think monitor lizards should be grouped with lizardfolk, and sharks with sahuagin?

I was thinking a Gas Spore and Shrieker were different, and so I would also list them separately. The MM doesn't.

 

[Cadence]

Myconoids may be a "fungus" in terms of biology, but in game terms they are not a fungal hazard, they are people.

Are they "people"? Or are only humanoids "people" the way the DMG presents it?

Tangentially, How does the MM grouping Aasimar, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Goliath Halfling, Human, Orc, Tiefling all by occupation fit with the logic of the rest of the MM?

 

[Parmandur]

Are they "people"? Or are only humanoids "people" the way the DMG presents it?

Tangentially, How does the MM grouping Aasimar, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Goliath Halfling, Human, Orc, Tiefling all by occupation fit with the logic of the rest of the MM?

I mean, you are more likely to have a social interaction with Myconoids than with anything in the Fungus section, by a considerable degree (points for creativity for anyone who does, though).

The logic of organizing NPCs by narrative function seems plenty logical, to me: want a Pirate, it is under Pirate, want a Cuktist, it is under Cultist.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure? Against my better judgment, I shall assume good faith from you in this response:

I am overwhelmed by your charity. It is greater than mine.

 

[Cadence]

The logic of organizing NPCs by narrative function seems plenty logical, to me: want a Pirate, it is under Pirate, want a Cuktist, it is under Cultist.

That works for Pirate and Cultist. But if you want a Warrior it is under Warrior... aren't they also under Bugbear, Bullywug, Githyanki, Gnoll, Goblin, Hobogoblin, Kobold, and Sahuagin. If you want a Priest it is also under Sahuagin Priest and Kuo-toa Archpriest. Knight is also under Githyanki.

Tangenting off... I understand this if the game will go forward with a hard distinction between PC Races/People vs. Monsters... but I can picture them adding more playable races in campaign books and a new Monsters of the Multiverse. (And in terms of differences, on the surface of it is a Githyanki or Hobogoblin more different from a Human than an Aasamar/Genasi/Tiefling or Orc? They feel less different to me than the Human than a Dragonborn does at first blush.)