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

[Azzy]

CR or type both make sense. Alphabetical does not.

I find the opposite to be true.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Right, but for new DMs who first see Black Dragon reading through the MM instead of 2014 style Dragon Black entries they get no 14 style general dragon entry talking about dragons in D&D in general and chromatic versus metallic and the range of primary descriptors. So seeing Black Dragon they may think, OK, so color then dragon so is there a Brown Dragon? A Yellow Dragon? And then flip to br and find Brass and Bronze Dragons but no Brown Dragon. To find out what those other primary descriptors are they have to go to the list of dragons in the table at the end.

They could have gone with a general dragon entry or devil one or demon one which would be useful, but they decided not to.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Right, but for new DMs who first see Black Dragon reading through the MM instead of 2014 style Dragon Black entries they get no 14 style general dragon entry talking about dragons in D&D in general and chromatic versus metallic and the range of primary descriptors. So seeing Black Dragon they may think, OK, so color then dragon so is there a Brown Dragon? A Yellow Dragon? And then flip to br and find Brass and Bronze Dragons but no Brown Dragon. To find out what those other primary descriptors are they have to go to the list of dragons in the table at the end.

They could have gone with a general dragon entry or devil one or demon one which would be useful, but they decided not to.

I don't really see that as a compelling argument. It takes the assumption that a new DM will assume there could be dragons of every color of the rainbow and beyond. They will see Black, then Blue, then no Brown? OK, so it's not every color of the rainbow. Let's look up the dragons in the dragon group list. Oh! There are 10 and some are colors and some are metals. OK, now I know what to look for. I can find them alphabetically!

Also, if they went with using the "Dragon" creature type, they would still have to determine whether to list them under either "Dragon" and intermingle Chromatic and Metallic dragons alphabetically (which also would be different than older editions), or separate the two meta-groups. And if separated into two groups, how would they be listed alphabetically? As "Chromatic Dragon, Black" or "Dragon, Chromatic, Black"? It's messy.

I would much rather there be separate entries for each color, with their own narratives, each with 4 stat blocks for the differing ages. Then give us a break and see another monster... Ooohh... Black Pudding! Wazzat?

 

[Voadam]

OK, so it's not every color of the rainbow. Let's look up the dragons in the dragon group list.

Right, the extra step and page flipping instead of being there at "Dragon."

Oh! There are 10 and some are colors and some are metals. OK, now I know what to look for. I can find them alphabetically!

Sure, as long as you remember these lists of new primary descriptors or look them up again in the supplemental appendix. The metals being Brass, Bronze, Copper, Gold, Silver is a bit idiosyncratic.

Remembering and going to "Dragon" is more straightforward.

Also, if they went with using the "Dragon" creature type, they would still have to determine whether to list them under either "Dragon" and intermingle Chromatic and Metallic dragons alphabetically (which also would be different than older editions),

3e and 5e did go Dragon Chromatic X-Z, then Dragon metallic X-Z.

4e MM had the chromatics and metallics in different MMs.

OD&D, 1e, and 2e had them mixed up so Dragon Blue then Dragon Brass.

I am actually fine with both organization schemes.

or separate the two meta-groups. And if separated into two groups, how would they be listed alphabetically? As "Chromatic Dragon, Black" or "Dragon, Chromatic, Black"? It's messy.

It is messy but going from broad group to subgroup to individual makes organizational sense. It is why the Linnaean system does so.

Going Chromatic Dragon Black makes about as much sense as Black Dragon.

I would much rather there be separate entries for each color, with their own narratives, each with 4 stat blocks for the differing ages. Then give us a break and see another monster... Ooohh... Black Pudding! Wazzat?

So would you similarly prefer the Blue Slaad to be separate from the other Slaads and not under Slaad?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really see that as a compelling argument. It takes the assumption that a new DM will assume there could be dragons of every color of the rainbow and beyond. They will see Black, then Blue, then no Brown? OK, so it's not every color of the rainbow. Let's look up the dragons in the dragon group list. Oh! There are 10 and some are colors and some are metals. OK, now I know what to look for. I can find them alphabetically!

Also, if they went with using the "Dragon" creature type, they would still have to determine whether to list them under either "Dragon" and intermingle Chromatic and Metallic dragons alphabetically (which also would be different than older editions), or separate the two meta-groups. And if separated into two groups, how would they be listed alphabetically? As "Chromatic Dragon, Black" or "Dragon, Chromatic, Black"? It's messy.

I would much rather there be separate entries for each color, with their own narratives, each with 4 stat blocks for the differing ages. Then give us a break and see another monster... Ooohh... Black Pudding! Wazzat?

Are you reading the MM cover to cover from beginning to end then? It's still a reference book right?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, the extra step and page flipping instead of being there at "Dragon."

Sure, as long as you remember these lists of new primary descriptors or look them up again in the supplemental appendix. The metals being Brass, Bronze, Copper, Gold, Silver is a bit idiosyncratic.

Remembering and going to "Dragon" is more straightforward.


3e and 5e did go Dragon Chromatic X-Z, then Dragon metallic X-Z.

4e MM had the chromatics and metallics in different MMs.

OD&D, 1e, and 2e had them mixed up so Dragon Blue then Dragon Brass.

I am actually fine with both organization schemes.


It is messy but going from broad group to subgroup to individual makes organizational sense. It is why the Linnaean system does so.

Going Chromatic Dragon Black makes about as much sense as Black Dragon.


So would you similarly prefer the Blue Slaad to be separate from the other Slaads and not under Slaad?

I still use the "general comma specific" style in my own monster lists and documents.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

So would you similarly prefer the Blue Slaad to be separate from the other Slaads and not under Slaad?

Nope! Each dragon type is significantly different enough from other dragons that they can have their own book entry for their creature identity and culture, and the stat blocks in each entry are for the age variants.

Slaads have one common cultural identity with multiple stat blocks. I feel the same way about Revenants and Vampires.

 

[LordEntrails]

Nope! Each dragon type is significantly different enough from other dragons that they can have their own book entry for their creature identity and culture, and the stat blocks in each entry are for the age variants.

Slaads have one common cultural identity with multiple stat blocks. I feel the same way about Revenants and Vampires.

So inconsistency based upon years or your personal understandings and preferences. That's a great way to organize it... </sarcasm>

Look, we all have personal preferences but a published hardcover needs clear, consistent and natural organization.

Personally it doesn't affect me, because I use FG so I can filter on type and CR and search by text, so yea for me.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Are you reading the MM cover to cover from beginning to end then? It's still a reference book right?

I am not reading it from beginning to end again. I am saying that alphabetical, in the way they have presented it, is the most helpful for actually looking creatures up.

If a new DM sees a "succubus" and some "dretches" referenced in an adventure, they should be able to look up "Succubus" and "Dretches" in the monster manual and find those entries, without having to know to look up "demons" instead.

Or in a different example, where should a previous-edition DM look to find Succubus in the new book? Demon? Devil? How about their own entry, because it makes sense?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not reading it from beginning to end again. I am saying that alphabetical, in the way they have presented it, is the most helpful for actually looking creatures up.

If a new DM sees a "succubus" and some "dretches" referenced in an adventure, they should be able to look up "Succubus" and "Dretches" in the monster manual and find those entries, without having to know to look up "demons" instead.

Or in a different example, where should a previous-edition DM look to find Succubus in the new book? Demon? Devil? How about their own entry, because it makes sense?

Organizing entries based on being a new DM referencing them from a published adventure is singularly unuseful to me.