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

[kayakingpoodle]

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

I think it depends on why people aren't using it matters, those not using it after trying and not liking it are just as relevant as those using it.

 

[Yaarel]

Looking monsters up by level (Challenge Rating) is important, and happens often. However, because this is strictly mechanical, with little or no relation to lore, it belongs in a separate table, in an appendix. The CR number is mostly nonmeaningless, except for "easy" or "hard" in combat. Even when considering the mechanical number, it is often nonuseful as an organizer, because a leader of a group would be a different CR from the other members in the same group.

 

[Stormonu]

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.

This has been the reason bookmarks have existed for ages.

No organization is going to end up working perfectly as we all have our own organization idiosyncrasies. We can fight about it until the cows come home and still not have a good answer. Some want the book for consultation at the table. Others (like me) use it when looking for ideas when putting an adventure together. Others use it like a coffee table book for reading enjoyment, and some simply want it to encyclopedic. And I don't think WotC would make any money if they published five or more book variants to cater to each.

All I know is that the 2014 MM was flawed with putting Beasts and NPCs in their own separate sections, and the 2024 was flawed putting Blue Dragons under B, Blue Slaad under S and Gas Spore under F. Even 2E had issues with the 3-ring binder version when it tried to do it one-monster-to-a-page so the owner could sort it however they wanted. I'm sure you can find a flaw with the 1E version - even if its the fact monsters were being built stream-of-consiousness over three books (MM, FF, MM2).

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has been the reason bookmarks have existed for ages.

No organization is going to end up working perfectly as we all have our own organization idiosyncrasies. We can fight about it until the cows come home and still not have a good answer. Some want the book for consultation at the table. Others (like me) use it when looking for ideas when putting an adventure together. Others use it like a coffee table book for reading enjoyment, and some simply want it to encyclopedic. And I don't think WotC would make any money if they published five or more book variants to cater to each.

All I know is that the 2014 MM was flawed with putting Beasts and NPCs in their own separate sections, and the 2024 was flawed putting Blue Dragons under B, Blue Slaad under S and Gas Spore under F. Even 2E had issues with the 3-ring binder version when it tried to do it one-monster-to-a-page so the owner could sort it however they wanted. I'm sure you can find a flaw with the 1E version - even if its the fact monsters were being built stream-of-consiousness over three books (MM, FF, MM2).

All of those flaws are subjective, of course. I rather liked having beasts and NPCs in their own sections.