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

[dave2008]

In 2024, houserules are part of the setting choice.

It has always been part of the setting choice IMO. Nothing to do with 2024 rules.

 

[Pedantic]

This reminds me of something I've always wanted in a digital book that's intended for reference.

It should be possible to have multiple organization schemes you can flip between. There's obviously a use case for putting them by type, alphabetically, by CR and even something like by environment. Feels like a failure to really take advantage of the format that you can't easily do so.

 

[DragonLancer]

I only use the physical book (DDB is for character creation in my case) and I'd have preferred the classic method where creatures like Dragons, Golems, Devils... etc, were individual creatures are under that heading and then alphabetised. I find that much easier to keep track off when I'm flicking through the book.

 

[Tonguez]

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).

this is a strange statement as every single creature in the MM is fictitious, even the ones with real world parallels.

and Displacer beast is a good example of ambiguity - is it a Beast? a Monstrosity? an Abberation? Fey?

having Humanoids split across Fey, Fiend, Construct and Ooze doesnt help either

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

This reminds me of something I've always wanted in a digital book that's intended for reference.

It should be possible to have multiple organization schemes you can flip between. There's obviously a use case for putting them by type, alphabetically, by CR and even something like by environment. Feels like a failure to really take advantage of the format that you can't easily do so.

It is possible, with indices and/or appendices which would list the creatures by the preferred method. For a digital book, you could hyperlink the entries to the relevant pages.

 

[Sulicius]

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?

For me the answer is yes! Learning isn’t hard, especially when it comes to this.

 

[Pedantic]

It is possible, with indices and/or appendices which would list the creatures by the preferred method. For a digital book, you could hyperlink the entries to the relevant pages.

Right, but all we have are hyperlink structures. We should also just rearrange the scrolling order of the pages with some filter to create different reading experiences.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The biggest downside in Dragons, Devil, Demons, and various others being seperated out is that we don't get overall entries for them like we do for the Slaadi, or Modrons. Also why break up the Golems but not the former groups?

 

[Minigiant]

I once pondered my own RPG heartbreaker.

And in it the monsters would be grouped by their leader.

So Zombies, Skeletons, and Ghouls would be under NECROMANCER.

But orc berserker, human raider, wild elf, dwarven exile, and halfling cannibal would be under WARLORD.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

The good and bad thing about monsters in the MM2025 is that monsters get enough lore to fill page space after the statblock and illustration are accounted for. In the case of devils, many got more lore than MM2014 because there was more page space devoted to them. Barbed Devils go from minions in 2014 to having plot hooks for using one as an adventure's main villain in 2025. However, creatures that got additional statblocks for their entries suffered, like the azer and bulette.