D&D (2024) Man I hate the organization of the 2024 Monster Manual

[Stalker0]

So I've been using my copy of the 2024 MM for a while now, and I can confidently say, I DO NOT like the organization.

I want a devil, don't know what kind of devil I want I just want a devil.

Old Book
1) Go to D for Devils
2) Peruse the devils, find the one I like. Or heck, maybe two different ones.
3) Profit

New Book
1) Go to the back index and find the Devil group
2) Find the name of the first devil
3) Go to the front index and find the page (or try to find it alphabetically)
4) Rinse and repeat for every devil there until I find the one I want.
5) Realize I want a second devil and then start the process over again.

There has not been a single time where I found working in the new book easier than the old.

It really came to a head today where I wanted to put in a golem. Again, not sure what golem I wanted, just wanted a golem. So...I go to the group section in the back of the book to start the process. But....oh golems don't get an entry. So unless all of these other creatures with several monsters in their group, golems don't get one. So...back to the table of contents.

Sigh.

 

[Shiroiken]

Something that was suggested to me that I thought was crazy, was to organize it by creature type. While it seems nuts, I feel like it would actually work really well. You could break it up by chapter, with an introduction going into the description of each type. It would help the OP's situation a bit, since you'd have all fiends together, but they'd have to dig through both demons and devils to find what they want.

 

[Minigiant]

The 2024 books seems to be made, designed, and laid out for newish D&D fans who normally don't read rulebooks and don't have a history of being D&D fans.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Something that was suggested to me that I thought was crazy, was to organize it by creature type. While it seems nuts, I feel like it would actually work really well. You could break it up by chapter, with an introduction going into the description of each type. It would help the OP's situation a bit, since you'd have all fiends together, but they'd have to dig through both demons and devils to find what they want.

I did that with the original Bugbears & Borderlands, and a lot of feedback is they wanted it back to what they are used to. Which makes sense, I suppose. If you're familiar with where to find something, even if it's organized better later, it's harder to break that programming. Like grocery stores. I know exactly where to find stuff because I've been there hundreds of times. But when they changed it, even though the organization made more sense, it was harder.

 

[pukunui]

My guess is they hoped most DMs wouldn't care how the MM was laid out because they'll be using D&D Beyond (or some other digital tool that renders book layout irrelevant).

 

[plecostomus]

My guess is they hoped most DMs wouldn't care how the MM was laid out because they'll be using D&D Beyond (or some other digital tool that renders book layout irrelevant).

I'd say the only troubles I have with the Beyond version are:

1. Sometimes the assets take a second to load, so I will select dragon turtle and it will be showing me draft horse because all the art hasn't loaded yet to force the text down the screen.
2. The top bar search on Beyond returns a ton of broken links. It's almost never worth it over going to the source book's TOC.

Actually finding stuff in the digital book is effortless. It had to be their top priority.

 

[aco175]

One reason I did not buy the book and only use some online stuff for monsters.

 

[Theory of Games]

So I've been using my copy of the 2024 MM for a while now, and I can confidently say, I DO NOT like the organization.

I want a devil, don't know what kind of devil I want I just want a devil.

Old Book
1) Go to D for Devils
2) Peruse the devils, find the one I like. Or heck, maybe two different ones.
3) Profit

New Book
1) Go to the back index and find the Devil group
2) Find the name of the first devil
3) Go to the front index and find the page (or try to find it alphabetically)
4) Rinse and repeat for every devil there until I find the one I want.
5) Realize I want a second devil and then start the process over again.

There has not been a single time where I found working in the new book easier than the old.

It really came to a head today where I wanted to put in a golem. Again, not sure what golem I wanted, just wanted a golem. So...I go to the group section in the back of the book to start the process. But....oh golems don't get an entry. So unless all of these other creatures with several monsters in their group, golems don't get one. So...back to the table of contents.

Sigh.

Or, you go back to playing the older games (with a few house-rules stolen from the newer one, like how the OSR games work)

 

[kayakingpoodle]

My guess is they hoped most DMs wouldn't care how the MM was laid out because they'll be using D&D Beyond (or some other digital tool that renders book layout irrelevant).

They definitely have the feel of a book being made out of a layout for digital content rather than being designed as a physical reference book l.

 

[pukunui]

They definitely have the feel of a book being made out of a layout for digital content rather than being designed as a physical reference book l.

I mean, the PHB is laid out nicely - it seems like they put a lot of thought into reworking the layout so it actually teaches a newbie about the game and how to play it before deep-diving into the crunchy bits.

The new DMG is kinda the same for DMs.

But the MM is just kinda ... "Meh. Let's just go with alphabetical because it doesn't really matter. But let's not make it 100% alphabetical just to keep people on their toes!"

Actually finding stuff in the digital book is effortless. It had to be their top priority.

Interestingly, I would say it's kind of the opposite with the digital PHB's TOC in DDB. It's not as detailed as the physical PHB's TOC is - it leaves out all the subclasses, all the species, and so on.

Physical TOC:


DDB TOC: