D&D 5E The 5th edition PHB: Sorry but when it comes to functionality, it deserves a 'one star' rating.

[Eejit]

So. Let me get this straight.

The PHB is made less functional for players to make it easier for the DM to go rummaging through the PHB whenever an abridged monster statblock without the information actually needed to use the monster forces the DM to reach for the PHB.

It's not just monsters who get spellcasting like that. Look at Drow, Tieflings. Look at Shadows and Elements monks. They get spells without spell tables specifying levels.

 

[Umbran]

I agree that the spells are organized in piss-poor fashion, but disagree with the OP on the rest.

The spell organization does leave something to be desired.

But, maybe that's just entrenched thinking. In the past, the spells were organized by Class, then Level, then alphabetically, with school listed at/near the top of the spell. So, I am used to thinking in that mode. But, with the current arrangement, I just look up by spell name.

This latter is just fine for lookup at runtime - I know what spell I am casting, I look it up. It isn't so great for looking things up when creating an adventure or character, or levelling up. When I'm making up my 10th level Evoker wizard NPC, and I don't know what spells I'm going to assign, the flat lookup by Name is not good.

Basically, the current arrangement is great for lookup, but poor for decision making.

 

[thalmin]

I just want page numbers that can be seen.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) I just look up by spell name.

This latter is just fine for lookup at runtime - I know what spell I am casting, I look it up. It isn't so great for looking things up when creating an adventure (. . .)

The DMG could use an appendix with lists set up for adventure design: spell lists by level/class, creature lists by CR/type/environment/etc., and others. Lots of design appendices.

(. . .) or character, or levelling up. When I'm making up my 10th level Evoker wizard NPC, and I don't know what spells I'm going to assign, the flat lookup by Name is not good.

Lists like this could have been part of the PHB appendices. I imagine it won't be long before such lists spring up online.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree with your assessment. If I want to go look up the spell "polymorph," I like that there's a simple alphabetical list of all the spells. I don't want to go play a guessing game about what level the spell is. There is already a list of spells for each class by level in the front of the spell section.

But why do you want to look up the spell "polymorph"? Only spellcasting monsters should ever cast the spell polymorph - and they can have it as a level. Monsters who polymorph others should just do it and it should be part of their statblock - to do otherwise is to leave the statblock half finished.

It's not just monsters who get spellcasting like that. Look at Drow, Tieflings. Look at Shadows and Elements monks. They get spells without spell tables specifying levels.

For want of four characters per spell (L5) everyone else has to suffer? It's not even as if 5e gives discounted spells the way 3.X does.

 

[Quartz]

No mention yet of the thoroughly excellent index?!?!?

I trust you're being ironic? The contents of the index are fine, but the presentation is sorely lacking. This is a reference book: give us an index with a full-sized font!

 

[Sacrosanct]

But why do you want to look up the spell "polymorph"? Only spellcasting monsters should ever cast the spell polymorph - and they can have it as a level. Monsters who polymorph others should just do it and it should be part of their statblock - to do otherwise is to leave the statblock half finished.
.

That's like, just your opinion man. --The Dude.

I for one don't want monster stat blocks to be full of information that is centrally located elsewhere. To me, it's a giant waste of space. Do you want every creature that has poison to describe what the poisoned condition is in it's statblock? Every creature that can grapple, do you they need to have the grapple rules or it's "half finished"?

Eventually all that added redundant material adds up and you end up with either a MM that is sparse in monsters, or a MM that is two inches thick. I want neither, thank you. I want a MM of reasonable size with as many monsters as possible.

 

[jodyjohnson]

On second thought, it would have been easier to list the spells by class and level, and then group with the class description like 4e. That was IMO the best organization so far.

But opinions differ on that.

 

[Umbran]

The DMG could use an appendix with lists set up for adventure design: spell lists by level/class, creature lists by CR/type/environment/etc., and others. Lots of design appendices.

Agreed. It would have been nice if I didn't have to flop between books to do that, though. Browse lists of spells in one book, look up the details in another? Not stunningly useable.

Lists like this could have been part of the PHB appendices. I imagine it won't be long before such lists spring up online.

Yes, and it isn't like I can't make one for myself with a single pass through the PHB and a spreadsheet application, allowing em to sort the darned things on any columns I want. But, yeah, it could have been there.

The one reason to not have such a list in the PHB is that you expect that soon enough that list will be outdated by release of additional content. Perpetually updated lists that we can get in PDF I would be fine with. Even easier that flipping between books, honestly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's like, just your opinion man. --The Dude.

I for one don't want monster stat blocks to be full of information that is centrally located elsewhere. To me, it's a giant waste of space. Do you want every creature that has poison to describe what the poisoned condition is in it's statblock? Every creature that can grapple, do you they need to have the grapple rules or it's "half finished"?

Eventually all that added redundant material adds up and you end up with either a MM that is sparse in monsters, or a MM that is two inches thick. I want neither, thank you. I want a MM of reasonable size with as many monsters as possible.

First, Petrification from a Gorgon staring at someone should not be the same thing as petrification from a wizard casting Flesh to Stone. The result is the same, the method is entirely different. It's a flavour issue that the monster abilities should not automatically (or even often) be the same as spells. And grapple's a basic rule. Poison? Yes. I want what that monster's specific poison does to be a part of that monster. Not all poisons are the same.

The tradeoff is one between space (which in this electronic age is effectively unlimited) and time while physically at the table. One of these is a very limited resource.

As for "As many monsters as possible", the fast way is to return to a 1e style statblock that's obviously for space.