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

[Mirrorrorrim]

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.

They moved away from adding traits in places not on the individual stat block. I think that is good.
1. One stat block for monster entry pages, and it is designed for easy Maps tool reference.
2. Not all dragons need to have the exact traits. For example, there are different age categories where this may vary anyway, and not all swim or shapechange or use magic.

 

[Ancalagon]

my problem is that is it incoherent. On one hand, they grouped certain "types" together - now soldier, veteran and champion are together (under warrior). Very useful, it wasn't like that before... aaaand at the same time, other monsters (like say devils) were ungrouped! Do it one way or the other, but not both!!!

 

[Demetrios1453]

I honestly think that the traditional order more or less became hardwired in our heads. If the original 1e MM had broken up the larger groups and had presented them alphabetically, we'd think it weird if the current MM suddenly decided to group them. Also, the original MM had much smaller groups for such things and devils and demons, which were more manageable at that point. Since then, they've expanded hugely, to the point that the "D" section of MMs was taking up a much larger portion of the book than you'd expect. Liberate your mind from that hardwired order, and it becomes much easier to work with...

 

[Stormonu]

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.

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.

Look through many RPG products I own with the like of "page XX" references in them*, I understand why they don't - though it would be really nice if they did.

* And my own troubles getting HomeBrewery & Word to properly paginate references

 

[Micah Sweet]

I honestly think that the traditional order more or less became hardwired in our heads. If the original 1e MM had broken up the larger groups and had presented them alphabetically, we'd think it weird if the current MM suddenly decided to group them. Also, the original MM had much smaller groups for such things and devils and demons, which were more manageable at that point. Since then, they've expanded hugely, to the point that the "D" section of MMs was taking up a much larger portion of the book than you'd expect. Liberate your mind from that hardwired order, and it becomes much easier to work with...

Yeah, just think differently! Not realistic for all of us.

 

[Sulicius]

Yeah, just think differently! Not realistic for all of us.

Have you used the 2025 MM yet?

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Have you used the 2025 MM yet?

I have not used it, but I have read it in digital form, and looked through a friends physical copy over a week or so, it doesn't fit my use case at all in the physical format.

I do not use digital stuff other than when out with friends discussing/debating the game, never playing or prepping.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Have you used the 2025 MM yet?

I have zero reason to do so. Nothing they did to it makes it worth another $50.

 

[Sulicius]

I have zero reason to do so. Nothing they did to it makes it worth another $50.

Ah ok, that’s fine. Let me know if you do, I am curious what your experience is using it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I honestly think that the traditional order more or less became hardwired in our heads. If the original 1e MM had broken up the larger groups and had presented them alphabetically, we'd think it weird if the current MM suddenly decided to group them. Also, the original MM had much smaller groups for such things and devils and demons, which were more manageable at that point. Since then, they've expanded hugely, to the point that the "D" section of MMs was taking up a much larger portion of the book than you'd expect. Liberate your mind from that hardwired order, and it becomes much easier to work with...

Maybe. But when you're looking up devils, it's because you want to reference all of the devils typically. I don't agree that it's six of one, half dozen of the other. YMMV.