D&D 5E Monster Manual Alphabetization

[Zaukrie]

I would prefer demons and devils be grouped, but I can understand the change........though, frankly, as much as I LOVE physical books, I almost always use DnDBeyond for WotC material anyway......so it likely doesn't matter.

 

[Tallifer]

I prefer Categories for a Table of Contents and book order: alphabetical order is for the index. When I am choosing a kind of demon, dragon etc, I want to find them all in one place for easy browsing and preparation.

Flapping Turtles and Eagle Sharks belong together.

(From my D&D webcomic Tales from the Gnomish Tarot )

 

[the Jester]

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

And on that subject, I hope that whatever damned idiot decided that having index entries in the PH with "See x" and no goddamn page number is never allowed to make a decision again involving formatting.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would be more amused by a monsters book organized in chapters by type, theme or terrain.

But I think this is because my own habit of READING the monsters books first, and using them later. Or rather, not liking to use them at all at the table, where I just use copies of the stats.

Because of that, I don't need an alphabetical order, the index is enough.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I honestly would have preferred the book be categorized by creature type or by CR instead of fully alphabetized personally.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I mostly like the current organization. But with all the Demons, Devils, and Dragons, D's take up 20-some percent of the book, which is not inapproprate to a game called "D&D", but while flipping through I do tend to get thrown off of where I am in the alphabet by having so many major categories packed right next to each other.

Just having more prominent markings on the individual pages of larger categories would help.

 

[Lojaan]

I'd prefer them to be arranged by environment personally. Easy enough to have an alphabetized index. Don't need the entries to be alphabetized.

 

[MarkB]

I mostly like the current organization. But with all the Demons, Devils, and Dragons, D's take up 20-some percent of the book, which is not inapproprate to a game called "D&D", but while flipping through I do tend to get thrown off of where I am in the alphabet by having so many major categories packed right next to each other.

And dinosaurs! It's more like D&D&D&D.

 

[Mannahnin]

I like the traditional format. Primarily alphabetical, but with groups of closely related creatures of a shared type (Dragons, Devils, Demons, and Giants, for example) grouped together under that shared type.

The appendices of the 5E monster manual annoys me a good deal because quite a few of those monsters should have proper alphabetical entries; if there were one strictly comprised of nonmagical animals and one of NPCs, that would make more sense.

And yes, a fully alphabetical index should also be included.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I like traditional format - but I really want Spider, Giant to be listed under "S" and not "G".