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

[Azzy]

I think the lack of page numbers in the index\reference portions of the book is a large part of the "it feels like the physical book was an after thought" views\complaints.

To me, it just seems like an oversight more than anything.

 

[Zaukrie]

To me, it just seems like an oversight more than anything.

Agreed. I'm so tired of the conspiracy theories.

 

[pukunui]

Guys, the lack of pages numbers is nothing new. Outside of TOCs and indices, WotC has long been allergic to page numbers … they always use chapter references (or nothing).

My guess would be that they don’t want to include them in case they change or something, which is silly really. I don’t think they’ve ever changed a book so much as to render a page number reference invalid.

 

[jasper]

But then you have the same problem with players having no idea where to find the monster they want because they do not yet know what the monster's "creature type" is. I mean, what is the type of a Displacer Beast? Does every single one of us know off the top of our heads? If not... then we have to do the same thing @Stalker0 was doing... going to the Index to find the name of the creature and then flipping to the right page.

There is no singular format to organize a reference book like the Monster Manual that is going to please all 100% of the player base. Even if WotC was to publish the book twice in two different formats... completely alphabetical AND by creature type... that still would find some of us players complaining that we have to spend the extra 15 seconds to check the Index because our preferred method wasn't either of those two formats.

Maybe we just all need to accept the fact that we as a peoples have become so used to 'instant gratification' via the use of technology, that yes... when we don't have a technology to give us what we want in milliseconds, we do in fact have to spend 15 to 30 seconds to find what we want. But that's okay. Looking something up in an Table of Contents or an Index or Glossary is not actually the massive burden we sometimes feel like it is.

Then Jasper had a beautiful EVILLLLLL IDEA. A great Beautiful HIGH profit idea.
1. Put out MM alphabetically totally a-z.
2. Put out MM like the 2014.
3. Put out MM by creature type.
4. Put out MM by CR.
USE the SAME COVER. SeAL IT IN plastic.
dONot use tAbLe of Contents. Sell those as extra.
Don't Use APPendix. Sell those as extra.
RAkE in The CaSh......
Fun..........

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Guys, the lack of pages numbers is nothing new. Outside of TOCs and indices, WotC has long been allergic to page numbers … they always use chapter references (or nothing).

My guess would be that they don’t want to include them in case they change or something, which is silly really. I don’t think they’ve ever changed a book so much as to render a page number reference invalid.

They will have a difficult problem changing anything in a physical book I own that is on my bookshelf. As for errata for later printings, changing the index isn't very difficult to add to the work the errata needs.

Heck adding page numbers in a later printing that has other errata wouldn't be a difficult proposition.

As far as digital content page numbers are not needed due to any search tool rendering them all but useless, except the DDB search "tool" which seems to be built on wild magic.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I believe the 2024 books are intended to be the new baseline for the future, with the intent to bring new players into the fold now that D&D is blowing up in pop culture. With that need in mind, alphabetical by name is the best way to organize the book, so in the middle of a game when it is most time-sensitive, you can flip straight to the monster during a game session. I did have to get used to Fiends and Dragons not being grouped together, and for all Humanoids to belong to "Jobs", but it has grown on me.

Designing encounters ahead of time is not as time-sensitive, and if you don't know what monster you want yet, using the Monster Lists is very helpful. I think they chose the best lists to help with encounter design, whether by Challenge Rating, Habitat, Creature Type or Group. I also understand wishing the page numbers were on the Lists as well, but after further consideration, it feels like it would make the lists messy, and you can already flip to the alphabetical name once you find what you are looking for, or just get the page number from the Index in the front if you don't want to flip.

As for other book organization options, organizing by Creature Types or Planar Cosmology is not as universal as one might think. Not all DMs care about official canon for those things. As we've seen in other threads, some people hate some of the Creature Type changes, (like Goblins are Fey and Elves are not?), and would be so annoyed if they had to think to go to a "Fey" Chapter to find Goblins. Organizing by Plane would also not work, as not everyone uses the Great Wheel Cosmology, or uses the Feywild or Shadowfell in the way as depicted in the books.

Just my 2cp.
(edited for spelling and clarity)

 

[Zaukrie]

If you're a new DM, do you even know the names of creatures? Not having all the devils, demons, and dragons together means you can't have common things about those creatures in the book. Which is a bummer, because lore and abilities you can add are not there.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

If you're a new DM, do you even know the names of creatures? Not having all the devils, demons, and dragons together means you can't have common things about those creatures in the book. Which is a bummer, because lore and abilities you can add are not there.

I don't get this argument. If you're a new DM, you don't have the context of prior editions to go off of, and you are reading the book for the first time. You will learn the layout of the book without being tripped up by the expectations set by older editions.

If you start at the very beginning, you will see the Contents (that point out the existence of Monster Lists) and the Index of Stat Blocks which has the names of the creatures, even MORE alphabetically, because the Beasts and variant Stat Blocks are in there alphabetically (like Haunting Revenant is listed as page 260, which is for "Revenant").

If you skip to the monsters and read alphabetically, the moment you come across the "Black Dragon" entry you will then know all dragons will be listed alphabetically by their primary descriptor.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't get this argument. If you're a new DM, you don't have the context of prior editions to go off of, and you are reading the book for the first time. You will learn the layout of the book without being tripped up by the expectations set by older editions.

If you start at the very beginning, you will see the Contents (that point out the existence of Monster Lists) and the Index of Stat Blocks which has the names of the creatures, even MORE alphabetically, because the Beasts and variant Stat Blocks are in there alphabetically (like Haunting Revenant is listed as page 260, which is for "Revenant").

If you skip to the monsters and read alphabetically, the moment you come across the "Black Dragon" entry you will then know all dragons will be listed alphabetically by their primary descriptor.

My point was you can't have common dragon traits that every dragon has in one place. If there are any, they have to be repeated in every entry. Or demon trait.

 

[Azzy]

My point was you can't have common dragon traits that every dragon has in one place. If there are any, they have to be repeated in every entry. Or demon trait.

Then you would have to flip between two places to know the traits of a single monster during gametime. That's not ideal.