D&D 5E 5th edition stat-block concern: Saving throws

[Bugleyman]

I like much of 5E, but one thing about stat blocks bothers me. Stat blocks only include the "Saves" line if the creature in question is proficient in one or more saves. Further, when there *is* a saves line, only the specific saving throws with which the creature is proficient are included. In theory, this is clean and consistent. In practice, it makes looking up saves unnecessarily troublesome.

Consider this -- As a DM, in order to find a saving throw in a stat block:

In D&D 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder/4E:

1. Look at the saves line. You're done.​

In in D&D 5:

1. Check if there is there a saves line.​

If so, continue to step 2.
If not, go to step 3.​

2. Check whether the desired save is present on the saves line.​

If so, you're done.
If not, go to step 3.​

3. Go to the creature's ability scores and locate the appropriate stat modifier. You're done.​

In the case of the 5E stat block, if the creature lacks a save entry, or the creature has a save entry, but the desired save is not present, then the DM must look two different places to find the save.

This could easily be addressed by always including the save line, and always including all six saves. If emphasis for proficient saves is needed, such saves could simply be written in bold. For the low, low price of making some stat blocks one line longer, you eliminate the need for the DM to check two places for the same piece of information. That seems like a an obviously worthwhile trade-off to me.

Thoughts?

 

[the Jester]

This could easily be addressed by always including the save line, and always including all six saves. If emphasis for proficient saves is needed, such saves could simply be written in bold. For the low, low price of making some stat blocks one line longer, you eliminate the need for the DM to check two places for the same piece of information. That seems like a an obviously worthwhile trade-off to me.

Thoughts?

I don't think it's "obviously worthwhile" at all.

Let's say there are 250 stat blocks in the MM, and that 200 of them do not presently have a "Saving Throws" line.

Putting that line in requires cutting out 200 lines elsewhere- which probably means a number of creature entries. IMHO, that's absolutely not worth it just to have information that is absolutely redundant in order to avoid what is, in fact, about a half a second's extra 'work' (if you can call redirecting your eyeballs around a stat block work at all).

 

[Bugleyman]

Putting that line in requires cutting out 200 lines elsewhere.

Given the formatting, that's clearly not the case. For example, take a look at the sphyinx entry.

But even if it were, as a DM I personally find ease-of-use to be a primary concern in a book like this -- I'd rather have the information available quickly and without a second glance so I can keep my attention focused on more important things.

Also, I realize this is the Internet, but how about dialing back the grar a tad?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think it's "obviously worthwhile" at all.

Let's say there are 250 stat blocks in the MM, and that 200 of them do not presently have a "Saving Throws" line.

Putting that line in requires cutting out 200 lines elsewhere- which probably means a number of creature entries. IMHO, that's absolutely not worth it just to have information that is absolutely redundant in order to avoid what is, in fact, about a half a second's extra 'work' (if you can call redirecting your eyeballs around a stat block work at all).

It's more significant than half a second's work, and I think you're being excessively aggressive in dismissing it (You may say "You should know!", "Takes one to know one!", PKB, etc. etc.! ). It means one has to think about how saves are derived, double-check that they've not been modified, and I know for me, it's already caused me to miss that monsters had good saves in certain areas and vice-versa.

I'm not saying it's a "huge deal", but I feel like it's an actual problem (however small one might feel it is), not one to be dismissed high-handed-ly.

EDIT - I think it's really down to whether one thinks the purpose of stat blocks is maximum usability or maximum information compression, or where one sits between those points. I know I'm far towards usability, myself. Stat blocks that make me think or look stuff up or double-check are, imho, failing me.

My biggest hope here is that DungeonScape will allow me to print out more "complete" stat blocks.

 

[Phoenix8008]

It's more significant than half a second's work, and I think you're being excessively aggressive in dismissing it (You may say "You should know!", "Takes one to know one!", PKB, etc. etc.! ). It means one has to think about how saves are derived, double-check that they've not been modified, and I know for me, it's already caused me to miss that monsters had good saves in certain areas and vice-versa.

I'm not saying it's a "huge deal", but I feel like it's an actual problem (however small one might feel it is), not one to be dismissed high-handed-ly.

EDIT - I think it's really down to whether one thinks the purpose of stat blocks is maximum usability or maximum information compression, or where one sits between those points. I know I'm far towards usability, myself. Stat blocks that make me think or look stuff up or double-check are, imho, failing me.

My biggest hope here is that DungeonScape will allow me to print out more "complete" stat blocks.

I'm gonna side with Jester here. How much more significant is it than half a seconds work? I looked at the Androsphinx entry linked to. If I was going there looking for a Strength save, I don't see it listed. So I shift my eyes up to the next line above the Saves line and get the Strength mod # from there. It's a centimeter away. As for completeness, I would vote for a more complete list of monsters with stats instead of less monsters due to using space to print redundant info. I'm not typing this in an angry or snotty frame of mind, just a calm and reasonable discussion, but I don't really see how the layout forces you to think about how anything was derived or how it forces you to double check if somethings been modified. Just use the numbers that are there. If it's on the Saves line, use that. If it's not, then use the ability modifier. Yes, it's a two step process instead of a one step process. If that saves space that lets them include more monster entries in the MM, then I'm okay with that. To each his or her own opinions though.

 

[Grazzt]

I'm gonna side with Jester here. How much more significant is it than half a seconds work? I looked at the Androsphinx entry linked to. If I was going there looking for a Strength save, I don't see it listed. So I shift my eyes up to the next line above the Saves line and get the Strength mod # from there. It's a centimeter away. As for completeness, I would vote for a more complete list of monsters with stats instead of less monsters due to using space to print redundant info. I'm not typing this in an angry or snotty frame of mind, just a calm and reasonable discussion, but I don't really see how the layout forces you to think about how anything was derived or how it forces you to double check if somethings been modified. Just use the numbers that are there. If it's on the Saves line, use that. If it's not, then use the ability modifier. Yes, it's a two step process instead of a one step process. If that saves space that lets them include more monster entries in the MM, then I'm okay with that. To each his or her own opinions though.

I'm with ya (and I guess siding with Jester as well). It's not a big deal (to me anyway) and really doesn't consume that much extra time at all. I honestly hadn't even given it a second thought (until I read this thread; still doesn't bother me though).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm gonna side with Jester here. How much more significant is it than half a seconds work? I looked at the Androsphinx entry linked to. If I was going there looking for a Strength save, I don't see it listed. So I shift my eyes up to the next line above the Saves line and get the Strength mod # from there. It's a centimeter away. As for completeness, I would vote for a more complete list of monsters with stats instead of less monsters due to using space to print redundant info. I'm not typing this in an angry or snotty frame of mind, just a calm and reasonable discussion, but I don't really see how the layout forces you to think about how anything was derived or how it forces you to double check if somethings been modified. Just use the numbers that are there. If it's on the Saves line, use that. If it's not, then use the ability modifier. Yes, it's a two step process instead of a one step process. If that saves space that lets them include more monster entries in the MM, then I'm okay with that. To each his or her own opinions though.

I think if you actually try and use the stat blocks, you may find it's kind of annoying.

If it's causing anyone to notice the issue, frankly, it's showing there's a usability issue. Like I said though, a lot of people, especially those not actually running RPGs (which, to be honest, appears to be most people here), rate stuff like compression higher than usability, and that's a matter of taste and what you're using the information for.

 

[Umbran]

If it's causing anyone to notice the issue, frankly, it's showing there's a usability issue.

That's an incomplete picture of usability, and how one typically handles such matters. One person seeing a problem does not an actionable usability issue make. And, now that it has been publicly stated, the testimony of others regarding it is suspect - the OP effectively leads the witness. Nobody who does usability testing would have later test subjects listen to critique from prior subjects.

Let us look at the three step procedure mentioned in the OP. That's not actually the simplest form of the operation. You can also have:

1) Check the Ability Scores line, and note the relevant modifier.
2) Check the saves line to see if there's another entry - if so, replace the previous modifier with the entry.
Done.

The OP also seems to add in lines and semi-steps in its description, possibly to inflate the appearance of the difficulty. When the analysis of the supposed usability issue does not present the simplest form of use, the analysis is suspect.

Like I said though, a lot of people, especially those not actually running RPGs (which, to be honest, appears to be most people here)

Dude, way to be dismissive. Not cool.

 

[doctorhook]

I use the "players roll all the dice" variant with my 5E game, and to facilitate not having to think about a monster's save DCs on the fly, I've been typing modified versions of the stat blocks I plan to use. Even though my monsters don't roll saves (they've got a static save DC for each ability score instead) I can definitely see where the OP is coming from.

 

[Ravenheart87]

So, we have an edition now that seems to be much faster than 3e and 4e, and now people complain about that it takes an extra second to take a look at the next line in the stat block?