More MM Thoughts

I'm about two-thirds of the way through the new Monster Manual. The more I read, the less I like! Here are some random observations...

• The organization is weird. All subtypes of mephit are listed under the main entry "Mephit," but most dragons, giants, and other creatures with variants are alphabetized by subtype (e.g., you find black dragons under "B", hill giants under "H", etc.).
• Lots of foes now inflict multiple damage types on a hit, with poison being the most common (huzzah for dwarf characters!). All hobgoblins, for example, now inflict poison damage on their attacks. It's rarely clear why, however, creatures are now inflicting these additional damage types. 
• Lots of creatures and NPCs now have a generic at-will attack (often a multiattack) that's identical for both melee and ranged. This approach is used for spellcasters, too, where it makes these characters seem bland and flavorless. In "classic" 5e, spellcaster stat blocks included complete spell lists, but now the design seems to drive DMs to spam these generic melee/ranged attacks rather make tactical use of the spells listed on the stat block. I guess it's easier for DMs to run encounters this way, but it feels kind of boring. There are still spells identified as once- or twice-per-day options, but no longer are there formal spell lists broken out by level.