| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Slit518Aug 20, 2015 19:16:49 | I always wondered why the Monster Manual wasn't divided by Challenge Rating as opposed to Alphabetical.
Never do I go through the Monster Manual looking for some suitable opponents for the 5th level party and go, "Man, I am really feeling the party needs to fight an enemy that starts with the letter K!" (you can use the Mitch Hedberg voice here again)
I would look through the Monster Manual and go, "I need to find a monster that has a Challenge Rating around 5."
They could have each section of the Challenge Rating be alphabetical, so all the CR 1 would be in A-Z order, the CR 2 would be in A-Z order, CR 3, etc...
And for those of you like, "Alphabetical would make it easier to find a specific monster, such as an Ogre." This statement is just silly, as you can go to the Index in the back, look at the list of alphabetical phrases, find ogre, and find the page it is on.
I know the DMG has a list of creatures by challenge rating, but that is just an uncessary step.
"Today's encounter brought to you by the letter K." *laughs* ~ Mitch Hedberg |
| #2AaronOfBarbariaAug 20, 2015 19:28:37 | The most common time at which a person is going to be flipping open the book and trying to find something in particular, it will be a situation where the name is known - when a DM is opening the book to the stats needed for an encounter while in play at the table.
So the book is sorted alphabetically because that is the most efficient way to find a creature under those particular, most common, circumstances.
Looking up things by CR is what you do when you are planning for a session, so you aren't in as much of a "time crunch" to get where you are going, so it is less inconvenient to have to reference a list of monsters sorted different than in the book in order to get what you are looking for.
Also, sorting by CR would make the grouping of related creatures more obnoxious than it already is - goblin and goblin boss would be pages apart, giants would show up in numerous places rather than grouped together, dragons, demons, devils, oozes, and so on down the book, would all be scattered throughout the book rather than placed alongside each other for not only the convenience of using them together, but the space saving of only printing any shared info once. |
| #3Slit518Aug 20, 2015 19:38:31 | A DM could solve the page thing by tabs.
The only issue is the one you brought up, Goblin and Goblin Boss. Baby Red Dragon, Junior Red Dragon, Adult Red Dragon, Ancient Red Dragon. Those would become a tedium on their own. But again, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. |
| #4MechaPilotAug 20, 2015 19:42:52 |
|
| #5Slit518Aug 20, 2015 19:46:29 |
|
| #6MechaPilotAug 20, 2015 19:55:36 |
|
| (Reply to #3)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #8arnwolf666Aug 20, 2015 20:07:33 | I am definitely in favor of supporting the alphabetization method of organizing the monster manual. |
| #9Rya.ReisenderAug 20, 2015 23:49:35 | It's 2015 and still we can't have a fully digitalized list of all monsters with the ability to filter and sort by anything. |
| #10NoonAug 21, 2015 1:37:56 |
|
| #11IllithidbixAug 21, 2015 4:12:22 | Because every monster manual since 1977 has been alphabetical. Also a number of entries have different monsters with different CRs (hobgoblin entries etc) |
| #12Azzy1974Aug 21, 2015 6:01:03 | Because that'd be weird. |
| (Reply to #9)CCS |
|
| (Reply to #10)CCS |
|
| (Reply to #14)The_White_Sorcerer |
|
| (Reply to #10)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #17MistwellAug 21, 2015 11:34:11 |
|
| #18The_JesterAug 21, 2015 12:53:45 | Say you're running an adventure. The adventure says you need to use a chimera. Or you really want to throw that monster at the PCs.
What part of the book do you look at?
Would there be more or less flipping? |
| #19Slit518Aug 21, 2015 15:27:37 |
|
| #20LordCorwinAug 21, 2015 17:41:32 | For the same reason spells are ordered in the PHB alphabetically... Or the classes... Or the backgrounds... Or the feats... So you can easily find them when you want to look them up. |
| #21GrazelAug 21, 2015 20:21:33 |
|
| #22The_JesterAug 21, 2015 20:36:36 |
|
| (Reply to #22)dave2008 |
|
| (Reply to #23)The_White_Sorcerer |
|