Please no. The problem is that this approach makes it difficult to find anything with any level of ambiguity in it. If you have a "Humanoids" section and a "Magical Beast" section, where do you put lycanthropes? If you add a "Shapechanger" section, where do you put oni and mimics?
Alphabetical works well, with certain subsections for especially large but tight categories (e.g. demon, devil, dragon, elemental, etc). I love the idea of an appendix with tables of all the (f'rex) trap monsters, etc. so it's easy to find the info, but I think it would be a poor overall organizational tactic.
Annnnd, just like that, I'm back on the encyclopedic boat. Steel Dragons are particularly fickle type of dragon today, it seems. hahaha.
You are correct, of course. It sounds good as a theory...and as you cite, very good for tables in any configuration...but there are just too many D&D critters that overlap in too many areas.
For example, all of this talk of "disease monsters"...I would not put rot grubs there. Yes, they're curable by Cure Disease...it kills or expels them from the body. But they are not, say, a cerebral parasite. They're grubs. And if Disease is to become a classification for monster, does that put lycanthropes in that camp? Vampires? Both lycanthropy and vampirism are considered "diseases" by many...and/or "curses" by many more. But their transmission certainly points to "disease." But both shapechange...does this make them "shapechanger diseases"? It's the lycanthrope's primary thing -changing from person to beastial form- but vampires can do many other things...and are undead...
That's not an entry I want to see.Vampire
Undead, Shapechanger, Disease, Humanoid, possibly Spellcaster...possibly Diabolic...monster
The arbitrary lines are simply too blurry in way too many instances.
Scratch what I suggested above. Keep it A-Z with notations or, I believe the 3-4eism is "keywords", for "trap-monster."
And yes, please many many appendices and table break downs by, not just keywords [fairy encounters, undead encounters, dragon encounters, trap encounters, et. al.] but level/CR, terrain, etc..."trap monster" goes in a trap monster table, "undead monster" in an "undead" table, etc...
"Environmental/hazard" keyword for your plants or other creatures that would somehow be part of the environment but not mobile/active "monsters"...something like ye olde "mudmen" which are magical manifestations of magically "infected" mudholes, but do not exist separate from nor can leave those particular magical mudholes...am I recalling correctly or dreaming up that there is some kind of sentient blizzard critter? That would be "environmental", etc...
Thank you for getting me back on the path of righteousness, Jester.
Last edited: