D&D (2024) DMG 2024: The Planes

Alphabetical is fundamentally easier to reference at the table and when designing scenarios and play at the table. Why would I want to have to remember which creature type something is (especially now that several creatures have changed type), find that section, then finally go to the entry I need. With alphabetical, I can just flip to the right entry. If I need to know which creatures are what creature type (which is rarely), an appendix table in the back listing what creatures are what type (like what was done in Tome of Foes) is enough and has a place next to listing creatures by environment.

Alphabetical is just better for ease of reference. In TSR-era, spells were listed grouped by class then by level, then alphabetical. That horribly sucked and I'm glad that WotC did away with that and went straight alphabetical.
Agree to disagree then. If I am flipping through a MM, it is because I want inspiration -- and 90% of the time I want inspiration within a context (a category of monsters). If I am not looking for inspiration, I can just go to the alphabetical index to find where the creature is, if for some reason I don't know what category it falls under.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I thought you were referring to things like dragons, giants, demons, etc. Sorry.
Yeah I might also be confused as well but I thought the discussion was around putting all Aberrations in one section, all Monstrosities in a section, etc. I have no issue with putting all variants of, let's say all variations of "Dragon, Age Color" or "Giant, Element" together. It's still organized alphabetically under D / G because the monster is "Dragon, Ancient Black" or "Giant, Fire", and then there are a bunch of variations on that monster at differing CR values.

Demons/Devils don't exactly fit the same argument, I feel like that organization only really works because "Demon" and "Devil" are right next to each other in the alphabet so you don't actually have to remember which is which (and Yugoloths being separate only works because no one has ever looked for Yugoloths).
 

Sort of a moot point since I'm not planning on buying 5.5, but I'm also in the camp where I prefer related groups of monsters to be grouped together. If I'm doing an adventure where I'm running a lot of devils I want to be able to find them quickly and I find it more convenient for their entries to be together. I'm not going to remember the name of every devil and will likely miss some that might otherwise fit. Someone mentioned that it will have an index or table of creatures by type which would help, but the annoyance there will be flipping back and forth between them.
 

Yeah I might also be confused as well but I thought the discussion was around putting all Aberrations in one section, all Monstrosities in a section, etc. I have no issue with putting all variants of, let's say all variations of "Dragon, Age Color" or "Giant, Element" together. It's still organized alphabetically under D / G because the monster is "Dragon, Ancient Black" or "Giant, Fire", and then there are a bunch of variations on that monster at differing CR values.

Demons/Devils don't exactly fit the same argument, I feel like that organization only really works because "Demon" and "Devil" are right next to each other in the alphabet so you don't actually have to remember which is which (and Yugoloths being separate only works because no one has ever looked for Yugoloths).
All I can tell you is that I've never had any trouble keeping them straight, in any MM.
 

I think, essentially, we're not going to agree here. If your idea of a Monster Manual is as a "source of inspiration", then, grouping monsters by type probably would work. I need a weird monster, let's leaf through aberrations and find something that works.

OTOH, if you view the Monster Manual as a reference book, rather than as something to read, then alphabetical is a much better way to go. You aren't going to want to have to remember what type a monster is a troll (is it humanoid? giant? Something else?) when you're in the middle of a session running some module and need to look up troll. (Or whatever monster - is a Grick an aberration or a monstrosity? How about an Eyestalk of Gzemnid?

I'm very much in the Reference Manual camp myself. I honestly haven't picked up the Monster Manual in years. Mine is virtually pristine. Read the Monster Manual? Not likely.
 


One thing that legitimately surprised me about the 2024 DMG was the chapter on the Planes. It spends nearly 40 pages on the Planes
Late to the party here, but OMG is that for real? The planes stuff was the biggest waste of space in the 2014 DMG and they expanded it?!?! Two pages on the existence of them, and brief summary, but more than that? WTF really. Waste. Of. Space.
 

All I can tell you is that I've never had any trouble keeping them straight, in any MM.
Yeah same, because they're organized alphabetically and not in the confusing way that a few people here are asking to change them to

It seems like you're trying to convince me I'm wrong by agreeing with me?
 

Yeah same, because they're organized alphabetically and not in the confusing way that a few people here are asking to change them to

It seems like you're trying to convince me I'm wrong by agreeing with me?
It doesn't matter because I won't be buying the book, but I preferred the old way the MM was organized and see no benefit to me to what they changed it to. A sentiment which is rather common for me with 5.5.
 

Did it have a alphabetical index of the monsters as well?

Not specifically, just a general index…
Apologies for the bad quality photo.

IMG_2639.jpeg


I’d be happy if just the bosses had their own section. But even with the limited categories here, I don’t dig it. I should note I’ve never actually used the book in play, I just use it as a casual flick through for ideas.

I get that grouping some things together makes sense. It’s just always thrown me when flipping through, I’ll see Gelatinous Cube and think I’m at G, when I’m at O and end up flipping the wrong way.
It’s a skill issue, I know 😁

Maybe I’ll hate the purely alphabetical layout in the end? I don’t know. But, I’m happy to try it out.
The alphabetic listing thing has always worked for the dictionary business, although having all the swear words grouped together would be helpful sometimes.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top