D&D 5E Monster Manual Alphabetization

[Amrûnril]

One of the quality of life improvements mentioned in the Future of D&D panel is adjusting the alphabetical organization of the monster manual. A Goristro, for instance, would be listed under G for Goristro rather than under D for Demon. This might also mean interspersing beast and NPC statblocks with the rest of the book, though that wasn't specified. Personally, though, I'd prefer to go in the opposite direction and organize the whole book by creature categories rather than alphabetically (ie. a section with all the abberations, a section with all the elementals etc.). Such a format would feel more cohesive when browsing for inspiration, and if I have a statblock I need to refer to during play, I can write down a page number just as easily as I name. Not everyone uses the monster manual in the same way though, so I'm curious if there's any sort of consensus here as to preferred organization.

 

[Omand]

I chose Mostly Alphabetical, but with a caveat.

I have no issue with the general categories used in the last few Monster Manuals. The Demon, Devil and Dragon groupings especially work with how my brain categorizes things.

I think the animal/beast/creature appendix in the 5E MM should have been included in the full text. Kind of a throwback to the 1E MM format.

Plus, as an added note, alphabetical generally works for me, but for variants (Dire, Elder, Greater, etc.) I think the format should be Bear, Dire or Bear, Greater rather than having those monsters appear in D and G rather than under B with the rest of the bears.

Cheers

 

[MarkB]

I buy most of my books on D&D Beyond these days, so it makes little difference to me - they're only a Search function away.

But it does feel a little inconsistent. Why are all Dinosaurs put together (and separate from other Beasts) but not all Humanoids, or all Undead?

 

[DemoMonkey]

Would Frost Giants and Hill Giants both be under "G", or one is under H and one is under F?

 

[Omand]

Would Frost Giants and Hill Giants both be under "G", or one is under H and one is under F?

We don't know yet.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Yes, I should have prefaced that with "I wonder, ..."

 

[Umbran]

Would Frost Giants and Hill Giants both be under "G", or one is under H and one is under F?

I half-expect we'd see Giant, Hill, and Giant, Frost. But we'd see Fomorian, Troll, and Ogre under F, T, and O, and not under Giant.

Then, in an appendix, we'd get a list, probably organized by CR, of all the Giant type creatures.

 

[Omand]

I half-expect we'd see Giant, Hill, and Giant, Frost. But we'd see Fomorian, Troll, and Ogre under F, T, and O, and not under Giant.

You are likely correct @Umbran as it seems to track on how people would look for the creature, they know it is a giant if it is Hill or Frost, so the G category seems to track. The others not so much if you are not familiar with the lore.

Again, time will tell.

Cheers

 

[Rabulias]

A better, more comprehesive, cross-referenced index would be extremely helpful no matter which decision they make regarding this.

 

[Ath-kethin]

A better, more comprehesive, cross-referenced index would be extremely helpful no matter which decision they make regarding this.

I firmly believe that the current PHB index exists the way it does entirely to make the THAC0 joke. Which isn't worth it at all.

And honestly, the existing index would work fine (or at least be useable) if they put page numbers for each entry in addition to saying "see XXXXX."