D&D (2024) Monster Manual Organisation

[Cadence]

Demons are way different, being literally all over the place. A Vrock and a Balpr are just different.

A gas spore and Shrieker feel a bit different too me too


As an aside, given that Violet fungi were with them too, I was kind of pleasantly surprised myconids got separated out.

 

[Cadence]

Yes, they only have the two...?

That just seemed an odd reason to me not to list them the same way the other dragons were in the index, that's all.

 

[Amphytrion]

Demons are way different, being literally all over the place. A Vrock and a Balpr are just different.

The Index has those broader families covered.

Again, not saying it is the only way to do it...but the organizarion is internally coherent and usable in prep.

I don't think they are materially different. They both belong to a family of monsters that are a subcategory of monster type.

I also don't think the organization is internally coherent. Sometimes, the alphabetization takes precedence; other times, the category takes precedence. See dragons and slaadi for a simple color-to-color comparison, or how Archpriest is under Priest, not under A.

I also don't think it is very usable in prep, but at that point, we are getting into a subjective statement. Anyone may feel how they want about this organization, which I personally find mind-boggling.

 

[Dalamar]

Based on what everyone has said here, it sounds to me that for the most part, the monsters are grouped together when the various stat blocks are considered variants of each other, and they're trying to avoid situations where you have a subgroup in a group. So they didn't want to have Dragon > Chromatic > Blue > Adult, so we get Blue Dragon > Adult.

It's not like people were demanding all monster families must be together. At least, I don't remember a lot of discussion about how goblinoids should be together, or that driders should be under drow.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Based on what everyone has said here, it sounds to me that for the most part, the monsters are grouped together when the various stat blocks are considered variants of each other, and they're trying to avoid situations where you have a subgroup in a group. So they didn't want to have Dragon > Chromatic > Blue > Adult, so we get Blue Dragon > Adult.

It's not like people were demanding all monster families must be together. At least, I don't remember a lot of discussion about how goblinoids should be together, or that driders should be under drow.

I think most of the complaints are do to the lack of consistency in how they sorteded the monsters. Which is valid, as the haphazard smorgasbord of methodology used to group and place them detracts from the books usefulness for both game prep and play. It affects using both the physical and digital versions as the search function on DDB is horrid.

 

[Dalamar]

I think most of the complaints are do to the lack of consistency in how they sorteded the monsters. Which is valid, as the haphazard smorgasbord of methodology used to group and place them detracts from the books usefulness for both game prep and play. It affects using both the physical and digital versions as the search function on DDB is horrid.

But it isn't haphazard, is what I'm saying. A balor isn't a demon in the same way that a goblin boss is a goblin. The thing about a balor is that it is a balor; it being a demon is secondary. If we still had the distinction of some demons being tanar'ri demons, having tanar'ri as a grouping would make some sense. But grouping demons together would be pretty close to grouping all Feywild creatures together.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

But it isn't haphazard, is what I'm saying. A balor isn't a demon in the same way that a goblin boss is a goblin. The thing about a balor is that it is a balor; it being a demon is secondary. If we still had the distinction of some demons being tanar'ri demons, having tanar'ri as a grouping would make some sense. But grouping demons together would be pretty close to grouping all Feywild creatures together.

Compared to the 4 previous 5e monster books it is pretty haphazard, some monsters are place alphabetical, otheres grouped by type so.e a little of both. Which in my opinion ruins it for actually using the book to play the game.
All 3 of the new core books suffer from changing things, but not really fixing anything when the books as a whole are considered. They may fix a few things but break things that were fine in the books they replaced. The 24 core 3 are at best a lateral step, definitely not a step forward for 5e. It's feels like several groups set out to make the books with different views on what they shoud be, and they ran out of time before they could bring all of those ideas together in a polished final product. The new books are different from the old, but they really aren't better books.

 

[Dalamar]

Compared to the 4 previous 5e monster books it is pretty haphazard, some monsters are place alphabetical, otheres grouped by type so.e a little of both. Which in my opinion ruins it for actually using the book to play the game.
All 3 of the new core books suffer from changing things, but not really fixing anything when the books as a whole are considered. They may fix a few things but break things that were fine in the books they replaced. The 24 core 3 are at best a lateral step, definitely not a step forward for 5e. It's feels like several groups set out to make the books with different views on what they shoud be, and they ran out of time before they could bring all of those ideas together in a polished final product. The new books are different from the old, but they really aren't better books.

Just because something is different doesn't mean it is haphazard. The 2014 MM lists yochlols under demons, but goes out of its way to basically say that they have nothing to do with other demons except the title. A balor has much less in common with a dretch than a goblin boss has with a goblin warrior.

I'm not saying the new MM is necessarily better, just that to me there seems to be a pattern to what is and isn't grouped together. And one of those is that we now have "blue dragons" instead of blue "dragons".

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think they are materially different. They both belong to a family of monsters that are a subcategory of monster type.

Not all categories are the same. "Science fiction novels" and "Amphibians" are vote categories, but not in the same way.

I also don't think the organization is internally coherent. Sometimes, the alphabetization takes precedence; other times, the category takes precedence. See dragons and slaadi for a simple color-to-color comparison, or how Archpriest is under Priest, not under A.

You might not think the logic is coherent, yet it is. The category takes precedence when the stat blocks are either CR variants or a group that would be together normally. Ao different Priests or Slaadi are grouped together, while Gold Dragons and Black Dragons are not. Just because you haven't perceived the logic yet does not make it illogical.

I also don't think it is very usable in prep

Based on what...?

 

[Cadence]

But it isn't haphazard, is what I'm saying. A balor isn't a demon in the same way that a goblin boss is a goblin. The thing about a balor is that it is a balor; it being a demon is secondary. If we still had the distinction of some demons being tanar'ri demons, having tanar'ri as a grouping would make some sense. But grouping demons together would be pretty close to grouping all Feywild creatures together.

Shrieker, Gas Spore and Violet Fungus are all grouped, but not with Myconids. And iirc the Violet Fungus has two types under Fungus.