D&D 5E New Organization of Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse- but not really

I think the problem with the organization as it has traditionally been, or with organizing monsters by type, is it makes it hard to find certain things. For instance, unless you're a pretty hard core D&D monster nerd, if a module referenced an "adaru", you wouldn't know to look it up under "Demon" (or Fiend, if sorted by type).
yeah and indexing is a major issue with WotC. there should be a great index in all RPG Books... there rarely is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

See/Cue all the various Orcs and Drow are problematic and what not threads.
I don't think tribal has been picked out as problematic; it's descriptive without casting judgment. Primitive, savage, etc. are a little different.
yeah my good aligned ______ tribes have existed since at least 3e... and good aligned members of the races have been since 2e. I can't imagine someone have trouble with "these people live in a tribal structure" "These people line in a imperial structure" and "These people live in a feudal structure"
 

yeah and indexing is a major issue with WotC. there should be a great index in all RPG Books... there rarely is.
Honestly, these days, I think there is an expectation that there will be a digital medium that allows you to search, which is what I always do these days, except for simple browsing for ideas.
 

Honestly, these days, I think there is an expectation that there will be a digital medium that allows you to search, which is what I always do these days, except for simple browsing for ideas.
But if you're buying a physical reference book it should have a good index! If I want an electronic searchable book then I'll buy an electronic book not a physical one.

A good reference tome should have multiple indicies as well depending on the field it is a reference for. For a 5e monster manual the bare minimum should be indices by name, by creature type, and by CR - 3 indexes.
 



I tend to agree. But to be fair, indexing is hard. :D
Not only that, but honestly, it's a bit pointless, because most people will end up having multiple monster books or even adventure books with new monsters, and although it's been done and maintained in the past, having multi-books index is even harder.
 



On the flip side, if you only somewhat remembered the name or spelling it could be easier to find the type and look in the small selection there to find something appropriate for your use. If you remember that the 1e Monster Manual has a demon that is tougher than a balor but can't remember the name it is easier to flip through the demons section looking for the picture you vaguely remember than to go through the whole book.

I might have a hard time remembering any of the names of the individual new fiends that have come up in Pathfinder 1e's Bestiaries 2-6, but I might be interested in looking up their various individual Kytons or Rakshasas for a specific theme. Grouping by theme has some functionality benefits (and tradeoffs) for a DM.
That's true, but I think the odds of an in-game, heat-of-the-moment "I can't find this monster" are probably highest when you see it listed in an adventure, in bold, with no page reference. If you're doing your prep you have all the time you need to find what you're looking for. If the group grinds to a halt for 20 minutes while you look for the monster, that's not good.
 

Remove ads

Top