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

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, I usually use the search tools, so the order things are in the book is I couldn't care lass.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Organizing by creature type is how I would do it. Then all the Humanoids are together, the Dragons are together, even the Constructs including Golems are in one place.

But then you have the same problem with players having no idea where to find the monster they want because they do not yet know what the monster's "creature type" is. I mean, what is the type of a Displacer Beast? Does every single one of us know off the top of our heads? If not... then we have to do the same thing @Stalker0 was doing... going to the Index to find the name of the creature and then flipping to the right page.

There is no singular format to organize a reference book like the Monster Manual that is going to please all 100% of the player base. Even if WotC was to publish the book twice in two different formats... completely alphabetical AND by creature type... that still would find some of us players complaining that we have to spend the extra 15 seconds to check the Index because our preferred method wasn't either of those two formats.

Maybe we just all need to accept the fact that we as a peoples have become so used to 'instant gratification' via the use of technology, that yes... when we don't have a technology to give us what we want in milliseconds, we do in fact have to spend 15 to 30 seconds to find what we want. But that's okay. Looking something up in an Table of Contents or an Index or Glossary is not actually the massive burden we sometimes feel like it is.

 

[Yaarel]

But then you have the same problem with players having no idea where to find the monster they want because they do not yet know what the monster's "creature type" is.

For the most part the creature types are self-explanatory. Dragon, Humanoid, Plant, Beast, Celestial, etcetera.

I mean, what is the type of a Displacer Beast?

Displacer Beast is fictitious and is whatever the concept is. In this case Fey (fairy).

Does every single one of us know off the top of our heads? If not... then we have to do the same thing @Stalker0 was doing... going to the Index to find the name of the creature and then flipping to the right page.

I prefer the other way around. Organize conceptually by group, especially by the selfevident creature type which also strongly correlates genre, then have an index in the back with strictly alphabetical listing.

There is no singular format to organize a reference book like the Monster Manual that is going to please all 100% of the player base.

True which is why I try to be clear about what I personally prefer.

Even if WotC was to publish the book twice in two different formats... completely alphabetical AND by creature type... that still would find some of us players complaining that we have to spend the extra 15 seconds to check the Index because our preferred method wasn't either of those two formats.

There is also a kind of middle way where the strict alphabetical order has a noun-adjective word order sotospeak. Dragon Red Adult, Humanoid Mage Archon, Fungal Shrieker, and so on.

Maybe we just all need to accept the fact that we as a peoples have become so used to 'instant gratification' via the use of technology, that yes... when we don't have a technology to give us what we want in milliseconds, we do in fact have to spend 15 to 30 seconds to find what we want. But that's okay. Looking something up in a Table of Contents or an Index or Glossary is not actually the massive burden we sometimes feel like it is.

My difficulty with the current approach shows up vividly with the Humanoid type. If I want to peruse these statblocks, I have no clue which “professions” the book decided to choose or what it decided to call them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the most part the creature types are self-explanatory. Dragon, Humanoid, Plant, Beast, Celestial, etcetera.


Displacer Beast is fictitious and is whatever the concept is. In this case Fey (fairy).


I prefer the other way around. Organize conceptually by group, especially by the selfevident creature type which also strongly correlates genre, then have an index in the back with strictly alphabetical listing.


True which is why I try to be clear about what I personally prefer.


There is also a kind of middle way where the strict alphabetical order has a noun-adjective word order sotospeak. Dragon Red Adult, Humanoid Mage Archon, Fungal Shrieker, and so on.


My difficulty with the current approach shows up vividly with the Humanoid type. If I want to peruse these statblocks, I have no clue which “professions” the book decided to choose or what it decided to call them.

Goblins sure look humanoid. What creature type are they? Gnolls too. The list goes on.

 

[Yaarel]

Goblins sure look humanoid. What creature type are they? Gnolls too. The list goes on.

Goblins, this is where I like how 4e distinguishes between “creature type” and “planar origin”. So a Goblin is a Fey Humanoid. In any case, Goblins are definitely Fey, but so are (British) Elves.

Gnoll is fictitious and could be a Fiend Beast, or so.

The idea is, when these otherworldly “spirits” adopt a humanoid form, they likewise take on other aspects of being humanlike.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Goblins, this is where I like how 4e distinguishes between “creature type” and “planar origin”. So a Goblin is a Fey Humanoid. In any case, Goblins are definitely Fey, but so are (British) Elves.

Gnoll is fictitious and could be a Fiend Beast, or so.

The idea is, when these otherworldly “spirits” adopt a humanoid form, they likewise take on other aspects of being humanlike.

You realize the vast majority of creatures in the MM are fictitious. Not sure what that quality is doing for your argument.

 

[Yaarel]

I prefer to organize by Creature Type. If 5e decided to distinguish between plane and type, then organize first by plane and then by type.

 

[Yaarel]

You realize the vast majority of creatures in the MM are fictitious. Not sure what that quality is doing for your argument.

Because these creatures are invented and their names random, all the more reason to organize by Creature Type, which assigns at least some kind of meaning for those searching.

 

[Stalker0]

But then you have the same problem with players having no idea where to find the monster they want because they do not yet know what the monster's "creature type" is. I mean, what is the type of a Displacer Beast? Does every single one of us know off the top of our heads? If not... then we have to do the same thing @Stalker0 was doing... going to the Index to find the name of the creature and then flipping to the right page.

The million dollar question (which I as a long veteran DM can no longer answer) is....how do newer DMs pick their monsters?

Do they just look at the index see a cool name and go for it? Do they go "ok I want a dragon"....and then just start looking at dragons? Do they just flip pages till they find cool art and go for it?

I can say that once you have some experience under your belt and start remembering the monsters, the grouping style is far superior not only for speed but just for browsing. As I said above, a lot of times I as a DM know that I need a golem in a certain situation, but I want to figure out the best one by CR or abilities of what have you.

But I respect that newer DMs might not operate that way, so its a question of how do they find monsters, and how long does it generally take before the grouping benefit becomes more useful than the "I don't know any monsters so I'm just going through and finding stuff"

 

[Quickleaf]

The million dollar question (which I as a long veteran DM can no longer answer) is....how do newer DMs pick their monsters?

Do they just look at the index see a cool name and go for it? Do they go "ok I want a dragon"....and then just start looking at dragons? Do they just flip pages till they find cool art and go for it?

I can say that once you have some experience under your belt and start remembering the monsters, the grouping style is far superior not only for speed but just for browsing. As I said above, a lot of times I as a DM know that I need a golem in a certain situation, but I want to figure out the best one by CR or abilities of what have you.

But I respect that newer DMs might not operate that way, so its a question of how do they find monsters, and how long does it generally take before the grouping benefit becomes more useful than the "I don't know any monsters so I'm just going through and finding stuff"

Speaking for my N of 1 nephew, they use mostly online video clips or wild imagination. Oh, there's this cool monster that's like a shark but on land, I saw it on YouTube. I want to do the monster from the Back Rooms. In Minecraft, zombies are like this... can you do that in D&D? What if a dragon could turn into shadows and when it breathes shadow it vanishes and reappears behind you where it breathed, and it's scales look like the stars so you can't see it when it flies above?

I gave them my 2014 MM, and I think they've thumbed through it a couple times, but it's probably just sitting on their shelf now.