D&D 5E (2024) Man I hate the organization of the 2024 Monster Manual

[Stalker0]

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.

Yeah this was my main complaint. Its not that I cannot find the devils in the new book (it is more work but I can find them), but so often I find that when I am using monsters I rarely go "I want an IRON golem, I want a BLACK dragon, I want an ICE devil".... instead I start from "I want some golem, I want some dragon, I want some devil" and then I will pursue the book to find the monster with the right abilities, CR, lore etc that fits the mold.

Doing that in the new book is exceptionally tedious.

 

[Bae'zel]

problem with that is it presumes I know what an Incubus is - especially as they have changed them from the historic sex offender

if I'm a DM who wants a "dream demon" then where do I look?

What you describe is kind of a problem with ANY game system's bestiary if it doesn't use generic names for creatures.

Now the Monster Overhaul by Skerples does this, which is greatly appreciated, but I know that some folks greatly dislike the loss of "flavor" and uniqueness.

Then again, all of the monster entries include a short description and an illustration. If that isn't enough for someone engaging with a monster manual (nor a cursory search on the internet, book or dictionary) then Gods help you.

 

[Zaukrie]

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...

Truth

 

[Zaukrie]

I'll now that Flee Mortals is by type, and it's great for picking a monster.

As someone said, I'm rarely looking for a monster, but often a monster type. Like, I want a beast here, not I want a bear here.

In any event, it's not changing so I guess I'll find a different thread. Good gaming everyone.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It’s easy to find monsters if you are looking for them by name (like when using a published adventure)...

I wonder if supporting their published adventure books is actually the usecase this was designed for.

 

[Ancalagon]

Someone mentioned that there are no more "general devil traits" (since we are all using this monster subtype as an example) and that the stat block is "complete", ie I don't need to look at the general devil entry, just the statblock itself.

I think that's a reasonable goal. However, it makes it harder for a DM wanting to create a devil themselves if a generic "mechanics of devils" is not available. It's even harder with the devils scattered all over the place.

 

[Ancalagon]

Yeah this was my main complaint. Its not that I cannot find the devils in the new book (it is more work but I can find them), but so often I find that when I am using monsters I rarely go "I want an IRON golem, I want a BLACK dragon, I want an ICE devil".... instead I start from "I want some golem, I want some dragon, I want some devil" and then I will pursue the book to find the monster with the right abilities, CR, lore etc that fits the mold.

Doing that in the new book is exceptionally tedious.

I too frequently operate that way. In a little homebrew adventure I ran just a few months ago, I needed a fiend to be summoned (a guardian trap kind of thing). I didn't really care exactly what fiend... having them scattered all over the place made it so much harder to pick one.

 

[HappyHubris]

The other 5e24 books are great, but the Monster Manual feels like it was put together by a web designer who forgot that books don't have hyperlinks.

CR or type both make sense. Alphabetical does not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wonder if supporting their published adventure books is actually the usecase this was designed for.

It would fit with their business plan and profit-making goals, which seem to be their first priority when designing and releasing product.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Someone mentioned that there are no more "general devil traits" (since we are all using this monster subtype as an example) and that the stat block is "complete", ie I don't need to look at the general devil entry, just the statblock itself.

I think that's a reasonable goal. However, it makes it harder for a DM wanting to create a devil themselves if a generic "mechanics of devils" is not available. It's even harder with the devils scattered all over the place.

If people are encouraged to make their own content, they might be less likely to buy the next supplement WotC publishes. I can see them choosing to de-emphasize DIY.