D&D 5E A monster stat block should always fit on one side of one page maximum (a poll)

[DND_Reborn]

Creatures (including lore) should fit on no more than 1 page IMO. Brevity is the soul of wit, after all.

If you need more space than that, you are just being superfluous.

 

[Voadam]

Creatures (including lore) should fit on no more than 1 page IMO. Brevity is the soul of wit, after all.

If you need more space than that, you are just being superfluous.

I would disagree. I am a big fan of 2e's often two-pages of stats plus lore. I like having a lot of lore to work from. 1e and Basic sometimes giving no lore and sometimes no physical description was frustrating. 3e and 4e skimping on lore and description, particularly in earlier MMs was disappointing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would disagree.

Tastes differ. While I like some of the things 2E did, many times none of it really made any difference to the game. If I want lore, etc., I just come up with it and do whatever makes the most sense to the setting...

However, if you want a 2-page maximum layout, it should always be on facing pages, so you can see both at once. If you need to, put in a filler "art" page before the next entry.

 

[Asisreo]

The only time I can accept a statblock being more than a page is if the monster is practically the entire adventure itself.

For example, I can understand a fight with a monster that goes through multiple phases with almost completely different sets of available actions each. Though, I'd also be pretty sure that could also be condensed to a reasonable size.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I voted 1 page maximum as a general rule. I think exceptions can be made for super cool boss monsters, epic demon lords, etc.

But for run-of-the-mill monsters? 1 page maximum. Period.

 

[Zaukrie]

This sounds nice, but makes being swallowed very samey, IMO. I like that different creatures use different slightly rules and effects when swallowing prey.

That's pretty easy. Target is swallowed. In addition, the target takes 10 fire damage or acid. Or whatever. But, 90% of the words are the same, over and over.

 

[Odysseus]

My standard is that I would like stat blocks to fit on the back of a playing card.

 

[Composer99]

I voted that stat blocks should be as long as they need to be; realistically, however, only the most legendary of legendary monsters should go over a page - and even then I'd prefer that they be "multi-phase" monsters (like the spoilered enemy below) so each phase fits in a stat block that is no more than one page in size. As long as I don't have to flip pages to view a stat block, I'm good.

Spoiler: Spoilered monster

Auril from Rime of the Frostmaiden

 

[Quickleaf]

I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but I would love to see less "always" and less "one size fits all" thinking appliesd to a monster book.

Maybe the kobold section has 2 lines of stats like @overgeeked 's griffon example, and then gets into tons and tons of traps & ways the kobolds interact with traps & maybe some collective lair actions that attack your gear/light sources/separate the party. Whereas the sphinx section might also have a very pared down stat block and instead be rife with trials / riddles / tests of the worthy. The mimic section might have a random table of unusual mimics. And the bulette section stays about how it is in the MM.

One thing I adore about Skerples' Monster Overhaul book is that there's a lot of attention to what the GM is going to use that monster for. Knowing how the kobold or sphinx is different from the mimic or bulette – and designing its monster entry toward that ideal/common usage is what I would like to see.

Most monster books (not just talking Monster Manual) for 5e cling to the standardized format, and I think it actually restricts creativity and pushes the game even more towards being primarily about fighting. I get it, it's D&D, but there actually are tons of really cool lore bits that never manifest in the monster stat blocks.

 

[Zaukrie]

I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but I would love to see less "always" and less "one size fits all" thinking appliesd to a monster book.

Maybe the kobold section has 2 lines of stats like @overgeeked 's griffon example, and then gets into tons and tons of traps & ways the kobolds interact with traps & maybe some collective lair actions that attack your gear/light sources/separate the party. Whereas the sphinx section might also have a very pared down stat block and instead be rife with trials / riddles / tests of the worthy. The mimic section might have a random table of unusual mimics. And the bulette section stays about how it is in the MM.

One thing I adore about Skerples' Monster Overhaul book is that there's a lot of attention to what the GM is going to use that monster for. Knowing how the kobold or sphinx is different from the mimic or bulette – and designing its monster entry toward that ideal/common usage is what I would like to see.

Most monster books (not just talking Monster Manual) for 5e cling to the standardized format, and I think it actually restricts creativity and pushes the game even more towards being primarily about fighting. I get it, it's D&D, but there actually are tons of really cool lore bits that never manifest in the monster stat blocks.

If you do stuff radically different, you get bad reviews and people don't buy your stuff. It's just not profitable to really change said line statblocks, if you are working in 5e.