Say you’re using a setting supplement. It has almanacs for each region, and each region has a list of dangers. Many of those dangers are monsters. Some of those monsters have stats. Which do you find more useful?
Say you’re using a setting supplement.
Say you’re using a setting supplement.
By listing them altogether, but perhaps having them highligted in regional colors, it makes the supplement useful if you want to pull them out of context and use in other campagins, or if some nasty druid/shapechanger should change into them while in a different region.
All together, but the text should reference the page where I’ll find the monsters it’s talking about.
If monsters are only limited to a single region, then regionally. If there is any cross-over then alphabetically. (Cross referencing between regions would be non-optimal.).
A bestiary appendix is preferable, as long as each regional entry names which beasts may be found there.
I like them listed by region. Makes it easier to choose a monster on the fly. Experienced DMs may know what monsters tend to be encountered in which regions. But it’d help anyone unfamiliar with a particular monster.
Alphabetically, you have to know what you’re looking for. And it helps if you’re following a published or converted adventure that calls for specific monsters. But an alphabetical list of monsters in the index or even the table of contents would accomplish this just as easy. The same could be true for placing a regional table in a book where they’re alphabetical, I guess.
I just feel that between the two, a regional structure with an alphabetical index would be better for DW’s style of “winging it”.
I’d prefer them listed by region, but a page of their names listed alphabetically with the page numbers for stat blocks would be helpful.