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

[Voadam]

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.

Except for the different individual types of chaos exemplar Slaadi (and other members of less prominent groups) who should not.

 

[Clint_L]

Right, but for new DMs who first see Black Dragon reading through the MM instead of 2014 style ...

Eh, if it's a new DM they're probably using DDB and aren't even aware that this is an issue for some.

 

[Yaarel]

Or in a different example, where should a previous-edition DM look to find Succubus in the new book? Demon? Devil?

Fiend. Creature type.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Eh, if it's a new DM they're probably using DDB and aren't even aware that this is an issue for some.

Linear data access is so last century.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Except for the different individual types of chaos exemplar Slaadi (and other members of less prominent groups) who should not.

Right, and they aren't in the Core Monster Manual.

Fiend. Creature type.

Creature type would not have been a good way to organize the 2024 MM.

They altered the creature types of many creatures to better balance out how many creatures belonged to each type. That would have been confusing to so many people who try to look up military hobgoblins in the Humanoid section, among other changes.

The line between creature types are a lot more blurry now. Heck, each Naga is a different creature type. In fact, creature type, planar origin, and habitat are among the most ignored or house-ruled qualities of monster entries. Some say that more monsters count as Fiends. Some say that Goblins are Humanoids. I know my humanoids can have different creature types depending on what plane they originate from.

 

[Clint_L]

Linear data access is so last century.

I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic but it’s kind of true. As I posted earlier, I only became aware of the issue when I finally got out my physical copy to read on the patio.

I’m normally browsing by source and CR, or by type.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic but it’s kind of true. As I posted earlier, I only became aware of the issue when I finally got out my physical copy to read on the patio.

I’m normally browsing by source and CR, or by type.

Not being sarcastic. But being dyslexic, I have never found alphabetical order particularly helpful.

 

[Voadam]

Eh, if it's a new DM they're probably using DDB and aren't even aware that this is an issue for some.

For evaluating the organization of the physical 24 MM people who are not using a physical MM at all are not really relevant.

 

[Yaarel]

Creature type would not have been a good way to organize the 2024 MM.

They altered the creature types of many creatures to better balance out how many creatures belonged to each type. That would have been confusing to so many people who try to look up military hobgoblins in the Humanoid section, among other changes.

The line between creature types are a lot more blurry now. Heck, each Naga is a different creature type. In fact, creature type, planar origin, and habitat are among the most ignored or house-ruled qualities of monster entries. Some say that more monsters count as Fiends. Some say that Goblins are Humanoids.

In a way, organizing by creature type is old school. Since AD&D 1e Monster Manual, the Fiend type (Devil, Demon) was all in one place, under "D". Dragon was all in one place. Elemental was in one place. Later, Beast was often separated out into one place. Sometimes, Humanoid (NPCs, rogues gallery) was too.

Organizing by creature type is a normal way to do D&D. Traditional.

Old school didnt have a Feywild yet. At least core didnt. If it had, the very many species of "wee folk", plus Goblin, Hobgoblin, and others probably would have grouped together under Fey or "Faerie". But early D&D adopted a euhemeristic tone, where all Fey were treated as if Humanoid (literally "demi-human" and "humanoid"). Today, all the Fey in one place is helpful.

A separate section for Humanoids is helpful, and the intro to the Humanoid type will mention what this is. It is defined by its "profession", referring to the ability of the species to learn, teach, and form human-like cultures. In 5e core, the term "soul" is official but remains undefined. The nature of a Humanoid soul is worth mentioning as an aspect of this creature type.

Regarding Goblin and Hobgoblin, they are obviously Fey, like a Leprechaun is. It is actually the Elf and Gnome who should probably be recognized as Fey as well. If they arent Fey, this is an important design decision that requires thought, consistency, and emphasis. The design decision to place a creature in the playable species of the Humanoid type is something that players need to clearly understand.

It is always better to organize monsters by creature types. The alphabetic index belongs in the back of the book.

I know my humanoids can have different creature types depending on what plane they originate from.

D&D 4e distinguished between "creature type" and "planar origin". I find this helpful.

For the Humanoid type, add the planar origin as tags. "Humanoid (Fey)".

 

[Voadam]

Right, and they aren't in the Core Monster Manual.

This unfortunately has the effect of undercutting the usefulness of looking things up alphabetically quickly at the table as they are normally written, so a module with an encounter with an ancient blue dragon and a blue slaad will mean you find only one of them under the B section as expected when flipping through the book at the table.