Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6120654" data-attributes="member: 22424">Well, I wasn't being entirely serious.But, yes, I do think that D&D should at least offer the electronic tools as an alternative option, and in the case of the MM it's likely to be the preferred option for everything except actual at-the-table use.Neither is ideal, but the key advantage of both (if actually implemented correctly, which wasn't the case in 2nd Ed) is that it allows the user to arrange the entries as he wishes, it allows him to take a subset out to the game with him (no need to carry MM4 for that one monster...), and it makes it easy to have p.50 and p.500 both open in front of him at the same time.Even so, it's yesterday's solution now we're in the age of the iPad (and equivalents).To be fair, my 3.5e MM (which was the one I originally cited) groups both "Giants" and "Genies". Didn't group fey, though, which might have been a mistake.But something I most definitely should have mentioned in my previous post: whatever format is chosen, the designers really need to include one or more really good indices. Indeed, for monster books beyond the first, they should really include both an index to that specific book and a master index of all monster books to date.</blockquote>