D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Defining Our Terms

[Li Shenron]

I'm ok with the types suggested by the article. I think monsters types can be useful to the game mechanics and the presentation, but in general they should avoid putting too many assumptions under a type... we don't really need every monster of type X to share HD, vision capabilities, number of skills, immunities etc like in 3e. A very few common features is enough, just the minimum that really makes sense to the concept behind the type e.g. the fact that elementals, undead and outsiders aren't "alive" at least in the same way that mortals are, might have some consequence, or the fact that oozes are blobs without features could make them all immune to criticals.

I find that there is no vermin or animal type (but this last can easily be amalgamated in the type of beast) in the list presented.

I think "beasts" covering also vermins and animals is a good choice. There isn't much difference.

To take it one step further, I would rather have the MM arranged by monster types chapters, so we will have an aberration chapter, a dragon chapter and so forth, each chapter could start with a recap of the general type and every thing related to that type, much like the dragons entries in previous MM.

Definitely, I would really like this too for the first MM. It would make the book look much better, and it would be helpful for DMs who are looking for creating an "undead encounter" to have all undead close to each other, so that they can compare them and pick ones with appropriate level and XP, without going back and forth in the book.

I see the MM can be used as a "book of cooking recipes" where if you are going to make a soup, you want to look into the soup chapter of the book, not have soup recipes mixed with meat, fish and vegetables.

Then if you remember a monster's name but not type, you can look it up in the index.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I strongly disagree with that, there is a big difference between forest and woodland for example, while the later describe an area covered in trees the former describe an area that is covered in trees and undergrowth and is generally harder to move through.

Stronghold and urban are also two very different things, outsider is meh IMO and don't let me start on merging Fey and Giant into Humanoids.

Warder

The amount of undergrowth in a forrest isn't dependant on how "civilized" as it is described in the article, but on what type of trees the forrest has. Oak forrests for instance has nearly no undergrowth at all and are easy to move through, while birch forrests are just a big tangle.

 

[Blackwarder]

The amount of undergrowth in a forrest isn't dependant on how "civilized" as it is described in the article, but on what type of trees the forrest has. Oak forrests for instance has nearly no undergrowth at all and are easy to move through, while birch forrests are just a big tangle.

Yep, but oak forests are generally woodlands

Warder

 

[Dausuul]

Definitely, I would really like this too for the first MM. It would make the book look much better, and it would be helpful for DMs who are looking for creating an "undead encounter" to have all undead close to each other, so that they can compare them and pick ones with appropriate level and XP, without going back and forth in the book.

Oh heck no. No no no no NO. A Monster Manual organized by arbitrary and non-obvious categories would be appalling. The Monster Manual should be organized alphabetically like any sane reference book. If I'm looking for slaad, I don't want to have to remember if they ended up in Fiends or Elementals or Aberrations. I just want to flip to S and find the dang slaad.

If you want a list of monsters by category, that can go in the index, but when I need a monster in a hurry I want to be able to go to the monster by name.

 

[Weather Report]

I really like dig the monster types, except that Beast and Monstrosity are a bit muddy, I think the Minotaur should be a Giant, not a Monstrosity, and why is the Displacer Beast a Monstrosity, seems it should be Beast, Fey, or maybe even Aberration.

If you take away Monstrosity, what would Medusa fit into?

Also, maybe bring back the Animal type.

The Worg part of the article annoyed me, monstrosity my heiny (Animal, or Beast, maybe even Fey).

 

[Li Shenron]

Oh heck no. No no no no NO. A Monster Manual organized by arbitrary and non-obvious categories would be appalling. The Monster Manual should be organized alphabetically like any sane reference book. If I'm looking for slaad, I don't want to have to remember if they ended up in Fiends or Elementals or Aberrations. I just want to flip to S and find the dang slaad.

If you want a list of monsters by category, that can go in the index, but when I need a monster in a hurry I want to be able to go to the monster by name.

Nah, the MM would be fine with chapters!

If you really don't remember the type, you go to the first page or last page (wherever the index is), you scroll down, and in max 10 seconds you find the page number which takes but a few more seconds to reach.

If you have to browse the pages by monsters name, it takes about the same time to find it, because you're looking at the names not the page numbers.

And then how many times really you didn't know about a monster in the first Monster Manual? Those are almost all common monsters, with a few exceptions there is hardly a problem remembering the type (that is, of course, if the total number of types is not too high*).

Then for Monster Manuals after the first, we can definitely go with alphabetical order, especially because the common info about each type doesn't need to be reprinted (it can be assumed everyone has MM1) and because in some supplementary monsters books some monsters types might have very few entries and thus a whole chapter would look silly.

*It's good already that they merge Animals, Beasts and Vermins, but maybe we can get rid of Giants (merged to humanoids or monstrosities) and perhaps something else

Anyway, the 3ed MM already had one chapter for Animals and one other chapter for Vermin, has this every been a problem?

 

[Klaus]

Oh heck no. No no no no NO. A Monster Manual organized by arbitrary and non-obvious categories would be appalling. The Monster Manual should be organized alphabetically like any sane reference book. If I'm looking for slaad, I don't want to have to remember if they ended up in Fiends or Elementals or Aberrations. I just want to flip to S and find the dang slaad.

If you want a list of monsters by category, that can go in the index, but when I need a monster in a hurry I want to be able to go to the monster by name.

I agree. Either "monster by name" or, possibly, "monster by level". So if you're setting up a 7th-level adventure, you flip to chapters 5-9 for the appropriate monsters. Want something easier, you flip to earlier chapters. Want something harder, you go to chapters 10 and up.

 

[avin]

Blame science.

Antarctica
Climate: subarctic to arctic

Science also says Polar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_climate
We certainly don't use "arctic" here in southern hemisphere, well, at least here in Brasil. We say "polar" for Antarctica.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree. Either "monster by name" or, possibly, "monster by level". So if you're setting up a 7th-level adventure, you flip to chapters 5-9 for the appropriate monsters. Want something easier, you flip to earlier chapters. Want something harder, you go to chapters 10 and up.

That would be an interesting alternative.

But really, the problem with MM layout design is that you have to ask yourself a fundamental question: are you (the DM) going to use the MM to prepare a gaming session or during a gaming session?

We had another thread discussing this problem.

Personally my own way of using the MM is definitely to prepare the game. That's why I would like it well-organized, like a manual, not like a dictionary.

I never use a MM at the table because (a) except the rare case of a solo monsters, it will be a page-flipping nightmare, and (b) it's either books OR food at my gaming table

To solve problem (a), I've always resorted to photocopies or using the SRD on a laptop.

But then if I ever have to find up a monster quickly in a MM, alphabetical order doesn't really speed it up much compared to alphabetical index with page number.

 

[jadrax]

Anyway, the 3ed MM already had one chapter for Animals and one other chapter for Vermin, has this every been a problem?

I found that really annoying in play tbh.