Post/Author/DateTime	Post
yonman 09-21-05, 02:14 PM	Honestly, I have a hard time finding things in this book as well as my new players. D&D Core books: The Index is kinda worthless and the table of contents does no good when you need specific questions. All of the Magic items aren't categorized alphabetically except when they are in their respected table (rings, wants, etc.). So basically if I have to find something, i literally have to MEMORIZE where everything is in the book, my newest players can't find squat because they don't know how it's categorized. All this books need are simple INDEX. I assume they don't have this to save on paper printed. But honestly, I end up printing up all of my player's handouts because they can never find anything quickly enough. The SRD has been a godsend because it is easy to use and everything is (in my opinion) labeled correctly. D&D needs to be simplified for every new user. They kinda did that with the game mechanics, but they biffed up on their book formatting. Just my two cents, any other comments?
Jubilee 09-21-05, 02:33 PM	I agree that there could be some major improvements to the formatting & indexing of the core books. My big pet peeve is with the monster manual index of monsters by CR in the back of the book. How hard would it have been to put in the page number? Most of the time I can find the monsters, but when the monster is a subtype of another monster type(demon, devil, celestial), you can't find it alphabetically unless you've memorized all of the types of monsters that have different names for subtypes. Sigh.
Amaril 09-21-05, 02:38 PM	my personal solution is to search The Hypertext d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org) for referencing game mechanics and the core books for explanations. Be sure to read the section labeled "How to use this site."
q'afuu 09-21-05, 02:52 PM	All of the Magic items aren't categorized alphabetically except when they are in their respected table (rings, wants, etc.). All wondrous items are listed alphabetically, with their description, in my DMG. The only exceptions are things like artifacts, cursed and intelligent items. In the tables however, they're listed by value. IOW, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
yonman 09-21-05, 03:54 PM	All wondrous items are listed alphabetically, with their description, in my DMG. The only exceptions are things like artifacts, cursed and intelligent items. In the tables however, they're listed by value. IOW, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Well, each section of the Magic item descriptions has a Table by type (Rings, Wands, etc) and then the alphabetical listing of each in text descriptions. Originally in previous editions, ALL of the Tables were together on 2-4 pages (Armor to Wonderous Items) and then the magical items listed alphabetically together (meaning Armor to Wonderous item text descriptions were all alphabetical together instead of separate).
Valentius 09-21-05, 04:03 PM	My biggest pet peeve is how all of the spells (including Psionic Powers) are listed alphabetically. I really liked the 2nd ed. format where the spells were listed alphabetically by level. It made life so much easier when looking up descriptions, especially if you weren't familliar with the spells in question.
Amaril 09-21-05, 04:10 PM	It's not that hard. If you're looking for armor, look in the armor section. If you're looking for a weapon, look in the weapon section. If you're looking for a ring, look in the rings section. If you're looking for a rod, look in the rods section. If you're looking for a staff, look in the staffs section. If you're looking for a wand, look in the wands section. If you're looking for something else entirely different, look in the wonderous items section. The reason for the breakup is so that the explanations of how those magic item categories function is in the same section as the items detailed, making it easier for individuals to understand how they work.
Amaril 09-21-05, 04:13 PM	My biggest pet peeve is how all of the spells (including Psionic Powers) are listed alphabetically. I really liked the 2nd ed. format where the spells were listed alphabetically by level. It made life so much easier when looking up descriptions, especially if you weren't familliar with the spells in question. By which level? Druid level? Bard level? Cleric level? Sorcerer level? Psion level? Psychic warrior level? That's what the spell lists are for at the beginning of the spell chapters.
caeruleus 09-21-05, 04:20 PM	But if they had an index in the back of each book, there would be no room for all those pages of advertizements! :rolleyes:
yonman 09-21-05, 04:28 PM	In response to your posts Amaril, I think the biggest problem with having it in v3.5 is that by categorizing them by table type it's fine, but when you need to look up an individual item, regular players who don't know how things are categorized can't find anything alphabetically because there's no way to tell what section they're in if they don't know any names of items. Having all of the items categorized alphabetically in text format is much more efficient than having them separated by type and then categorized. From a player's standpoint who doesn't use a DM's guide (because they're not the DM) just getting the text description of their magic item is a pain unless the DM actively shows them. It was so much easier to just turn to the magic items section and then look up each item you had alphabetically instead of turning to each section after section for every "type" of item you had and then going alphabetically.....
yonman 09-21-05, 04:31 PM	But if they had an index in the back of each book, there would be no room for all those pages of advertizements! :rolleyes: I second that...
Amaril 09-21-05, 04:44 PM	But if they had an index in the back of each book, there would be no room for all those pages of advertizements! :rolleyes: I agree, I hate not having an index in the supplementary books (the core books have indices). However, the ads don't bother me so much, as most published books have advertising in them. I also appreciate the effort made on the publisher's behalf to raise awareness of existing products. There are a lot of individuals out there that don't even know about half the D&D products available.
q'afuu 09-21-05, 04:51 PM	In response to your posts Amaril, I think the biggest problem with having it in v3.5 is that by categorizing them by table type it's fine, but when you need to look up an individual item, regular players who don't know how things are categorized can't find anything alphabetically because there's no way to tell what section they're in if they don't know any names of items. If they don't know any names of items, they can't very well look them up in an alphabetical list that goes cross-category either, can they? ;) The thing is, if they know the name they pretty much always know what kind of item it is. Wands, rings, scrolls, etc. are all pretty much indicated as wand/ring/scroll/etc. of X. There are very few weapons or armours with a specific name that doesn't immediately give away that it's a weapon or armour. That means that just about everything that isn't obviously part of a certain category ends up being a wondrous item. The only really problematic ones are the artifacts and cursed and/or intelligent items, and there aren't all that many of those.
Judging Eagle 09-21-05, 05:54 PM	All wondrous items are listed alphabetically, with their description, in my DMG. The only exceptions are things like artifacts, cursed and intelligent items. In the tables however, they're listed by value. IOW, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. He can't read things aphabetically in the wonderous item list? That's the only place where the index isnt' that helpful since it's by cost. However, listing items by cost helps more with deciding what to purchase or assign as treasures to an npc/monster. The rest of the game is pretty much arranged by aphabetical order. Races (humans 1st though), classes, skills, feats, spells etc.
Ath'kethin 09-21-05, 05:59 PM	But if they had an index in the back of each book, there would be no room for all those pages of advertizements! :rolleyes: Thanks. I was going to mention that.
Molu Kai 09-21-05, 06:07 PM	I notice that people are always complaining on these boards about things like artwork, paper quality, editing and typos, the index etc.... Yet if you go to the message boards for other game companies (eg) palladiumbooks, you will find far fewer topics like this. However, their products have terrible editing, poor typesetting, lower quality art and NO index. Is WOTC being held to a higher standard because of their price (24.95 USD for the RIFTS RPG, compared to 29.95 USD for the Player's Handbook)?
Gallameed 09-21-05, 07:17 PM	Thanks. I was going to mention that. Yes, I find the adverts in the later/new books totally wrong, STOP IT! NOW!
caeruleus 09-22-05, 12:24 PM	There are a lot of individuals out there that don't even know about half the D&D products available. Dear gods, how do such individuals live?!? :eek: Personally, I'll bet they're doing just fine with the material they already have. I'll bet some of them make up stuff to suit their campaigns (I do that, and I know what products are available). Only WotC really benefits from those ads. I'm not criticizing them for this. I totally understand why they do this. But let's not pretend that it's done for the benefit of others. My original post where I brought the ads up was just an expression of my own preferences. I've already talked Charles Ryan about this, so I'm not trying to get them to change. So yes, I would like to see indices. But not for magic items; I don't have much trouble finding those as it is. But an index in the back of each book would be helpful.
Amaril 09-22-05, 12:42 PM	Dear gods, how do such individuals live?!? :eek: Personally, I'll bet they're doing just fine with the material they already have. I'll bet some of them make up stuff to suit their campaigns (I do that, and I know what products are available). Only WotC really benefits from those ads. I'm not criticizing them for this. I totally understand why they do this. But let's not pretend that it's done for the benefit of others. I didn't say it was for the benefit of the players. What I mean by "appreciate" is that I understand the business purpose of the advertisements, not that I actually "like" the advertising. Truth be told, however, I have several friends who are not up-to-date with what books are available and are usually appreciative of information about a product that covers their needs or interests. Let's not pretend all D&D players search the forums and online catalogs so that they always know about all available products. By the way, while an index is indeed a handy thing to have, and I would much rather prefer to have an index instead of advertising, I can get by just fine using the table of contents in those books. they seem to have done a better job with their ToC in the products that lack an index, with the exception of monsters that belong to a particular family (e.g. - devils, demons, dinosaurs, etc.).
IMarvinTPA 09-22-05, 05:20 PM	I'm trying to get full descriptions of everything into my database at http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive.asp, I also keep page numbers on them. And there is an excellent basic index at http://www.juicymango.co.uk/dndindex/Default.aspx where you can search by the name of anything quickly and get page numbers. Their list is far more comprehensive than mine. IMarv
BelRex 09-22-05, 06:21 PM	My only problem is that they totally stopped printing indices. Every book should have an index in the back. As for the spells, yes it would be nice if they put out a small program that allowed you to display the spells in any format(by school, level, duration..etc). With all the books they have put out, a massive pdf with all similar information put in sections. I think they did something similar with classes and PrC(though I can't locate the link right now), and they are coming out with the spell compendium. A huge magical item index would be nice, with prices..etc. Sorted by environment(frostburn, stormwrack..etc) or race(wild, destiny..etc). Sorry..I'm turning this post into a wish list :P
FlameLover 09-22-05, 06:35 PM	Thanks for the list of what you would like BelRex, i'm making my own D&D fansite/resource and something i can and do plan on doing is making an index/search page for all this sort of stuff so it's nice to know what sort of categories you'd like it to arrange under. So Alphabetical/Cost/Type sounding about right? Oh and the option to specify which books to search ofcourse ;)
IMarvinTPA 09-22-05, 07:12 PM	Thanks for the list of what you would like BelRex, i'm making my own D&D fansite/resource and something i can and do plan on doing is making an index/search page for all this sort of stuff so it's nice to know what sort of categories you'd like it to arrange under. So Alphabetical/Cost/Type sounding about right? Oh and the option to specify which books to search ofcourse ;) Please! Before you get too far, check out my site first. If you're going to invest that much time in it, help by investing it in adding more data to mine ('http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/index.asp')! I'll tell you now, it's too much to try it alone. IMarv
Kem 09-22-05, 07:57 PM	They don't have Indexes in the Supplemental Books but the ToCs in them are REALLY detailed. I'd be hard pressed to have something in the index that couldn't be found via the ToC just as fast.
Seeker95 09-22-05, 08:29 PM	I don't think the index / lack thereof, or the format, or the artwork or the page quality or even the price is bad. I think a very large and vocal percentage of the D&D Boards Population just likes to whine more than any other RPG group on the planet.
TheRedRobedWizard 09-22-05, 09:22 PM	The format of the books is rather intuitive. How new are these "newish" players? Most of my players could find something in the PHB within two weeks of starting, even if it did take them a few minutes of searching. For me, looking under Wondrous Items for Boots of Striding and Springing makes sense. It's not armor, it's not a weapon, nor is it a wand, scroll, staff, or rod. It's a process of elimination thing. Table of Contents tells you what the basic section headers are, and that should give you the basic idea of where things are. Personally, I'd rather them do without an Index and just give me more stuff in the book. More information, more pictures, more everything. -TRRW
LordHell 09-22-05, 09:31 PM	I still find the layout of the books to be tedius. I much prefered the old AD&D book layouts. Thank god for the SRD is all I can say.
BeyondFated 09-22-05, 09:51 PM	I loath, I reapeat, LOATH 3.5 weapon sizes. Whomever thought of them, is however on my 'Complete Moron' list. For me, it needlessly complicated things by giving each catagory a 'small' and 'medium' catagory. And I think I can weild something, but whoops! it's was freaking rolled up as a small weapon so I take a -2 for weilding it. Which is stupid. It makes no sense. A fighter can weild over 20+ weapons, but when one is a scalled down version, suddenly he's a moron? I know, I know, there are issues of 'well, it's smaller, so it's weighted different!' Well ya know what? A bloody shortsword is smaller than a longsword, and my fighter can use both! GRAGH! It makes me so angry, that I can't correctly divde my above rant into coherent paragraphs!
The Badger 09-22-05, 10:39 PM	A bloody shortsword is smaller than a longsword, and my fighter can use both! So what! A shortsword is built to be thrusting and as a rather small blade, a long sword is built to be slashing and moderately big. A dagger is even smaller but you know what once again different weighting. A medium character using a small longsword would be like you trying to use a child's toy sword effectively as the weapon it is properly made to be imitating, hell there is even a difference in hilt size. It is quite moronic to even assume you are not going to be weilding the thing at a penalty. You are complaining about a -2 penalty, do you realize that, hell improficient is -4. No -2 is not a moron, it is just you can't utilize the weapon at maximum potential, like a normal person that the weapon was sized for could.
Seeker95 09-23-05, 07:41 PM	A bloody shortsword is smaller than a longsword, and my fighter can use both!Your bloody fighter cannot use a short sword as effectively as s/he can use a longsword. The short sword does less damage. Now make the hand grip only half the size, so your pinky and ring finger can't be used in holding it. Even less effective. An analogy: A child learns to play violin on a really small violin. Hand that child an adult's violin and s/he messes up a lot. It's still a violin, but it is sized for someone much larger than s/he is used to. An adult has been playing violin for years. Hand that adult a child's violin and s/he messes up a lot. The fingerboard is all out of proportion and the bow doesn't have nearly enough length in it to pull the best notes from the strings. It's still a violin, but it is sized for someone much smaller than s/he is used to. THAT'S how weapon sizing works.
Gilean 09-24-05, 01:28 PM	Most of my players could find something in the PHB within two weeksQuotes are fun. Especially out of context.
Majorafire77 09-24-05, 09:12 PM	I see no problem with the core books themselves, but I dislike how ads seem to have replaced indexes in the supplements (I respect ads, but still, an index would be nice), and how the editing isn't that great these days (such as in CD and every Eberron book but the ECS and S:CoT). Meh. WotC is still getting my money.
residieu 09-24-05, 11:21 PM	My biggest pet peeve is how all of the spells (including Psionic Powers) are listed alphabetically. I really liked the 2nd ed. format where the spells were listed alphabetically by level. It made life so much easier when looking up descriptions, especially if you weren't familliar with the spells in question. I much prefer the current version, I don't always know the level until I look the spell up. The individual spell lists are listed by level, and usually have enough description to let you pick the one you want without looking at the full description. The 2nd edition books I have were worse, as the levels were only written at the start of each section, so you had to flip pages to find out if you were looking at 2nd or 3rd level spells.
doctorhook 09-25-05, 01:50 PM	Sweet Virgin Mother of Jesus, Wizards! Install some decent indexes in these books! it's impossible to find what you're looking for, particularly if it's somewhat obscure. (EG: Stat/size modifiers in the DMG, for example).
Seeker95 09-25-05, 04:57 PM	Install some decent indexes in these books! it's impossible to find what you're looking forIf you read the above posts, you will find that there are a great many individuals who seem to have no problem whatsoever finding what they are looking for, despite the absence of an index. Rather than turn to the end of the book, the just look in the Table of Contents at the front of the book.(EG: Stat/size modifiers in the DMG, for example).Here's where complaints get rather funny. 1. My DMG has an index. 2. Size / stat modifiers are in the PHB. 3. My PHB has an index. 4. Size / stat modifiers are listed in the PHB index. 5. It took me less than 20 seconds to find the modifiers are listed on pages 134 and 136.
residieu 09-25-05, 10:05 PM	1. My DMG has an index. 2. Size / stat modifiers are in the PHB. 3. My PHB has an index. 4. Size / stat modifiers are listed in the PHB index. 5. It took me less than 20 seconds to find the modifiers are listed on pages 134 and 136. While the core books do have pretty good indices, I miss the way it was in some 2nd edition books, where the DMG had an index to both the PHB and the DMG. Page numbers in red referred to one, black referred to the other. So if you weren't sure where a rule was, one trip to the DMG index would tell you.
Kem 09-26-05, 01:37 AM	While the core books do have pretty good indices, I miss the way it was in some 2nd edition books, where the DMG had an index to both the PHB and the DMG. Page numbers in red referred to one, black referred to the other. So if you weren't sure where a rule was, one trip to the DMG index would tell you. Back when all the rules where split over the PHB and DMG that made sense. One of the design philosophies is that any rule a player will need is in the PHB. Period. The DMG is for DMs ONLY. Period. If you as a player are looking for a rule that you need, odds are VERY likely its in the PHB. If you want to make magic items, Talk to the DM, who has the DMG and rules on creating magic items. Now when I go to a game I only need the PHB, and not both the DMG and the PHB.
Tyler Do'Urden 09-26-05, 01:45 AM	1. SRD. CTRL+F 2. What's so hard about memorizing? After the 15th time you've had to look up Character Wealth by level, shouldn't you just naturally remember that it's on page 135? Or at least remember that it's "around there", i.e. you'll start looking on page 120 and keep flipping 'til you see it.
danzig138 09-26-05, 11:38 AM	and then the magical items listed alphabetically together (meaning Armor to Wonderous item text descriptions were all alphabetical together instead of separate).Yep, that's how it was, and it was terribly annoying. Players don't need to look up their magic items. That's what the DM is for. And, if a player can't figure out where to find the item, then maybe his character shoudn't have it. Personally, I have no problems at all with the current organizational format. The indices (?) are find and serve my needs quite well. I don't have any problems finding things in the core books.
danzig138 09-26-05, 11:44 AM	Is WOTC being held to a higher standard because of their price (24.95 USD for the RIFTS RPG, compared to 29.95 USD for the Player's Handbook)?Nope. People here know that if they B&M loud and long enough, WotC might actually make changes based on the B&Ming. See 3.5 for an example. However, anyone who is at all familiar with Palladium knows that it doesn't matter how much they complain, not much is gong to be done about it. That's my thought on it at least.
Man in the Funny Hat 09-26-05, 12:14 PM	Sweet Virgin Mother of Jesus, Wizards! Install some decent indexes in these books!I'm no expert in publishing but it has been noted before that there are certain physical constraints that need to be considered. Specifically, you need to print in multiples of 16/32/64 pages. It isn't like printing on both sides of a piece of home copy paper and then gluing them all together. What happens is that one very large sheet of paper is printed with, say, 16 pages of a book and that one sheet is then folded several times, cut, and then you have a bundle of 16 pages that is gathered together with all the other 16 page bundles and the total is then bound together as one book. When you expand a book by just one page you essentially have to bind up another 15 blank pages (or worse, 31, or even 63 pages) - and pay for them. Part of the process of editing/publishing a book is making the most of those 15 pages. Yes, they could expand the index, but you're not going to expand the index by 16 pages. The additional pages then need to be filled, or else the expanded index has to be equalled by shrinking the content of the book elsewhere. In any case, you're going to face some significant new costs that will get tacked on to the price of the book - a price which people already delight in complaining about being too high. Not only do you pay for the additional pages you pay for the additional layout and changes that have to be made. Anyone more knowledgable about publishing feel free to correct me here. it's impossible to find what you're looking for, particularly if it's somewhat obscure. (EG: Stat/size modifiers in the DMG, for example).It's not obscure. You're simply looking in the WRONG book. You'll note that the PH index has an entry for size/stat modifiers because that's where you're supposed to look for rules regarding how to play the game. The DMG is the book to consult first for rules and advice to RUN the game. What you seem to be asking for is that each book not only have an index regarding its own content but that they index the content of other core books as well and that really isn't the purpose of an index. An index isn't necessarily meant to be an EXHAUSTIVE means of referencing content. In fact, for purposes of hard-copy books what you're asking for is very impractical. The best solution ISN'T to try to add an exhaustive index to the books. The solution, given the century in which we live, is what people are already doing - making an online or hypertext index that incorporates mulitple books and is more detailed because it doesn't have space constraints and costs like hard-copy.