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

[billd91]

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.

How to organize best depends on how most people are looking through the Monster Manual. An alphabetic arrangement that includes the monster's stats is best for quick reference at the table while running the game and/or when you know the name of the creature you're looking for. For those purposes, I'd argue an alphabetic arrangement is by far the most efficient arrangement, particularly for quick reference at game time by a DM - the time when efficiency in lookup is at its greatest need.

Pretty much every other case - whether designing an encounter, populating a dungeon, building a wandering monster list - has much more relaxed efficiency needs and can make use of supplementary indexes sorted by other criteria.

And in this sense, the Monster Manual is a bit inconsistent in breaking out vs grouping monsters in its alphabetic arrangement. So I get the OP's frustration.

 

[Piperken]

I don't own the MM 2024. I do own the 1st Monstrous Menagerie for A5E. I use my hardcover most often during prep, and depending on how I feel in the moment I will use it, or the A5E tools online.

I do keep it nearby at the table in case I need it as a back up or to double check something.

If I use A5E tools, I usually just type in dragons in the search bar, if I want to see what types of dragons might be possibilities. This captures the sentiment when you open the A5E book and flip through it.

There is a more refined search page which can give you a more granular list, that I've used on occasion.

 

[Yaarel]

How to organize best depends on how most people are looking through the Monster Manual.

Here too the Creature Type seems most helpful. If I am a player, I might be looking at the Beast statblocks for what to wildshape into. If I am a DM populating a world, Fey creatures altogether helps.

An alphabetic arrangement that includes the monster's stats is best for quick reference at the table while running the game and/or when you know the name of the creature you're looking for. For those purposes, I'd argue an alphabetic arrangement is by far the most efficient arrangement, particularly for quick reference at game time by a DM - the time when efficiency in lookup is at its greatest need.

Indexes in the back are precisely for content in strictly alphabetical order. Otherwise, the creature type is usually obvious for looking something up. And corner cases such as if a "Drake" is a Dragon or a Beast, benefit from emphasizing the design intention.

Pretty much every other case - whether designing an encounter, populating a dungeon, building a wandering monster list - has much more relaxed efficiency needs and can make use of supplementary indexes sorted by other criteria.

Populating a dungeon or any adventure definitely benefits from Creature Type grouping.

If I am populating a village, I want the Humanoids altogether.

If horror or Shadowfell I want the Undead together.

And in this sense, the Monster Manual is a bit inconsistent in breaking out vs grouping monsters in its alphabetic arrangement. So I get the OP's frustration.

I agree consistency, and expectation, are as important as most frequent usage.

 

[dave2008]

So I've been using my copy of the 2024 MM for a while now, and I can confidently say, I DO NOT like the organization.

I want a devil, don't know what kind of devil I want I just want a devil.

Old Book
1) Go to D for Devils
2) Peruse the devils, find the one I like. Or heck, maybe two different ones.
3) Profit

New Book
1) Go to the back index and find the Devil group
2) Find the name of the first devil
3) Go to the front index and find the page (or try to find it alphabetically)
4) Rinse and repeat for every devil there until I find the one I want.
5) Realize I want a second devil and then start the process over again.

There has not been a single time where I found working in the new book easier than the old.

It really came to a head today where I wanted to put in a golem. Again, not sure what golem I wanted, just wanted a golem. So...I go to the group section in the back of the book to start the process. But....oh golems don't get an entry. So unless all of these other creatures with several monsters in their group, golems don't get one. So...back to the table of contents.

Sigh.

While I generally agree with you (with additional reasons you didn't mention as well - like type lore), I have found it easier to navigate if I know what I want (at times). However, that split second increase in efficiency doesn't come close to making up for all the inefficiency he current system creates.

The one caveat: it works well on Beyond where everything is linked. In your example I just got the Monster by Group (or by CR, Habitat, or Type) and click on the monster I want and up it pops.

The books work incredibly well on beyond IMO, but not so go in a physical product. That is disappointing because it could easily be both.

 

[dave2008]

... like how the OSR games work)

don't you mean how all D&D games work? I mean I haven't play D&D without house rules since around 1988+/-

 

[Yaarel]

don't you mean how all D&D games work? I mean I haven't play D&D without house rules since around 1988+/-

In 2024, houserules are part of the setting choice.

 

[Sulicius]

This is actually the first physical copy of a Monster Manual I ever bought, and I put it to the test as soon as I got it. It’s easy to find monsters if you are looking for them by name (like when using a published adventure), but a bit less intuitive to browse through.

The real question is, can you learn and adapt to this new book? I can, so I am not as bothered.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Not when you're using the DDB monster database or the encounter builder or Maps or ...

No it’s still laid out the same way. The Monster Database is the only place it can really be made easier in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is actually the first physical copy of a Monster Manual I ever bought, and I put it to the test as soon as I got it. It’s easy to find monsters if you are looking for them by name (like when using a published adventure), but a bit less intuitive to browse through.

The real question is, can you learn and adapt to this new book? I can, so I am not as bothered.

I would posit rather than, is it worth learning and adapting to this new book as opposed to using one of the many other books to which you've already adapted?

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Not when you're using the DDB monster database or the encounter builder or Maps or ...

Sure unless you want to use the physical book and not use DDB. The physical book as a creative reference tool is subpar at best the way it is organized.