D&D 5E New Organization of Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse- but not really

[Voadam]

I did find it a little annoying that in the 5e Monster Manual The Undead Beholder Death Tyrant is under the Beholder entry in the B's alongside normal Beholders and Spectators, which is fine putting all the Beholder entries together, but then the Undead Beholder Zombie is under the Zombie entry in the Zs.

Things get a little complicated when you have overlapping possible classifications, like a Frost Giant Skeleton which could alphabetically go under Frost Giant Skeleton, Giant Frost Skeleton, or Skeleton Frost Giant or Skeleton Giant Frost. Looking under any of those alphabetization schemes could make sense.

 

[the Jester]

I think the problem with the organization as it has traditionally been, or with organizing monsters by type, is it makes it hard to find certain things. For instance, unless you're a pretty hard core D&D monster nerd, if a module referenced an "adaru", you wouldn't know to look it up under "Demon" (or Fiend, if sorted by type).

 

[Azzy]

There were always two basic failures of the Monstrous Compendium 3-ring binder format for 2e. The first was that if you didn't reinforce the pages around the holes the binder pages had a tendency to tear. Reinforcements for binder holes aren't that expensive, but it was annoying.

The second was that they didn't actually use both sides for the same monster - nor should they have because it would have been a true waste of pages. But that meant that there was no way to actually use the binder format to organize monsters because as soon as you put hobgoblin and horse on the same page back to back you couldn't slide in the homunculus page when it came out in a later MC pack (examples pulled from the ether because I don't remember the actual problematic entries, but they definitely were there). So at least I ended up just storing them by pack and they might as well have been different books.

So true!

 

[Voadam]

I think the problem with the organization as it has traditionally been, or with organizing monsters by type, is it makes it hard to find certain things. For instance, unless you're a pretty hard core D&D monster nerd, if a module referenced an "adaru", you wouldn't know to look it up under "Demon" (or Fiend, if sorted by type).

On the flip side, if you only somewhat remembered the name or spelling it could be easier to find the type and look in the small selection there to find something appropriate for your use. If you remember that the 1e Monster Manual has a demon that is tougher than a balor but can't remember the name it is easier to flip through the demons section looking for the picture you vaguely remember than to go through the whole book.

I might have a hard time remembering any of the names of the individual new fiends that have come up in Pathfinder 1e's Bestiaries 2-6, but I might be interested in looking up their various individual Kytons or Rakshasas for a specific theme. Grouping by theme has some functionality benefits (and tradeoffs) for a DM.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Demons and devils being broken out individually is such a fantastic change. Seems to me it could be see as part of not forcing specific setting elements upon every setting, such the Blood War factions. I hope they can now come up with anything to make them the slightest interesting and worth using.

 

[J.Quondam]

Keep them in categories, so I don't have to flip around.
Also, "D" should just get its own volume. There should be "Monster Manual: D" and "Monster Manual: The Rest"

 

[SkidAce]

There were always two basic failures of the Monstrous Compendium 3-ring binder format for 2e. The first was that if you didn't reinforce the pages around the holes the binder pages had a tendency to tear. Reinforcements for binder holes aren't that expensive, but it was annoying.

The second was that they didn't actually use both sides for the same monster - nor should they have because it would have been a true waste of pages. But that meant that there was no way to actually use the binder format to organize monsters because as soon as you put hobgoblin and horse on the same page back to back you couldn't slide in the homunculus page when it came out in a later MC pack (examples pulled from the ether because I don't remember the actual problematic entries, but they definitely were there). So at least I ended up just storing them by pack and they might as well have been different books.

Its true, I was there in the olden days.

 

[Voadam]

There were always two basic failures of the Monstrous Compendium 3-ring binder format for 2e. The first was that if you didn't reinforce the pages around the holes the binder pages had a tendency to tear. Reinforcements for binder holes aren't that expensive, but it was annoying.

The second was that they didn't actually use both sides for the same monster - nor should they have because it would have been a true waste of pages. But that meant that there was no way to actually use the binder format to organize monsters because as soon as you put hobgoblin and horse on the same page back to back you couldn't slide in the homunculus page when it came out in a later MC pack (examples pulled from the ether because I don't remember the actual problematic entries, but they definitely were there). So at least I ended up just storing them by pack and they might as well have been different books.

The hobgoblin-horse-homunculus alphabetization thing was there, but it would be very close to alphabetical with monsters usually being within one or two pages of where pure alphabetizing would assign them. If your appendixes grew to be fourteen volumes or whatever this increased as a problem but if you had only a handful it would probably work OK.

If you wanted to organize things differently though it could be a bigger problem and with fewer compendiums.

If you wanted to do alphabetical by rough creature type (2e did not have many formal types and they were not comprehensive) it could cause problems with a single compendium.

Wight you could put in with your undead binder, but then winter wolf might be on the back of the wight with the undead instead of with your animal monster section. This would quickly make a high percentage of monsters be placed in classifications you would not want them. If you did not see it where you expected you would have to go alphabetically through each of your categories to see if winter wolf was included in your 2e entries or not.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, pure alphabetical wasn't a good idea in the first place and their claim was nothing but hypocrisy.

Leave monster groups alone, just don't put the Tarrasque under Abomination where I'll never find it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Keep them in categories, so I don't have to flip around.
Also, "D" should just get its own volume. There should be "Monster Manual: D" and "Monster Manual: The Rest"

Monster Manual: The D.