Criticisms of the new stat block format

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

Looking at this section of the stat block format for the Pit Fiend:

Skills Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, Religion +24
Str 32 (+24)
Dex 24 (+20)
Wis 20 (+18)
Con 27 (+21)
Int 22 (+19)
Cha 28 (+22)

I am wondering why they write the numbers like this. For example, Strength has *two* associated bonuses: The "inherent" bonus (+11 in this case), and a "level modified bonus", which is the inherent bonus plus 1/2 of the creatures level.

I find the listing confusing because it redundantly includes the level bonus in each value. I would prefer:

Level Bonus: +13
Str 32 (+11)
Dex 24 (+7)
Wis 20 (+5)
Con 27 (+8)
Int 22 (+19)
Cha 28 (+9)

That makes more sense when you consider that the "inherent" bonus is used in some places (as a melee damage bonus, for example), while the "level modified bonus" is used elsewhere (in skill checks).

 

[Dragonblade]

Hmm, I can see what you are saying but I really hate doing math on the fly. I prefer to just look at a number and be able to use it directly without having to add level bonus and inherent stat bonus together. Not a big deal normally, but if I was running multiple monsters, it could be a pain.

Still, I see merit in your suggestion.

Perhaps breaking out the bonus like this:

Str 32 (+11 inherent +13 level: +24)
Dex 24 (+7 inherent +13 level: +20)

etc...

 

[Nymrohd]

From Worlds and Monsters I get the feeling they want stat blocks to be compact so they can include variations of the same monster as well as exology and fluff. So I guess they are trying to cut up on too much data. I am also getting the general impression that raw stat bonus will not be important but rather the stat bonus + level bonus will be.

 

[Benimoto]

I wonder that too. My main guess is that you very rarely use the "inherent" bonus, and any time you make a raw skill check, you use the "level modified" bonus. The melee damage bonus might be about the only place you use the inherent bonus. They don't seem to use the inherent bonus in defenses, initiative checks, skill checks, attack rolls, or any other of the usual place we'd see it. In combat, you used raw strength checks only for bull rush and trip attempts, and those might be changed to the "level modified" bonus too.

 

[Cam Banks]

I have no major problems with the stat block, but the overuse of bold bugs me.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[tomBitonti]

I wonder that too. My main guess is that you very rarely use the "inherent" bonus, and any time you make a raw skill check, you use the "level modified" bonus. The melee damage bonus might be about the only place you use the inherent bonus. They don't seem to use the inherent bonus in defenses, initiative checks, skill checks, attack rolls, or any other of the usual place we'd see it. In combat, you used raw strength checks only for bull rush and trip attempts, and those might be changed to the "level modified" bonus too.

Isn't the inherent bonus used in melee damage? (And, I presume, for HP calculations and for determination of bonus spells, if such still exist.)

 

[Intrope]

Isn't the inherent bonus used in melee damage? (And, I presume, for HP calculations and for determination of bonus spells, if such still exist.)

Yes, but that's already written down in the attack lines. In other words, when running the creature it's inherent bonus is either irrelevant or already included.

 

[Zsig]

I'd rather if it was something like:

STR +11 (+24)
DEX +7 (+20)
CON +8 (+21)

and so on...
who cares if it's a 26 or a 27? We've been told alreadythat there's no longer ability damage/drain etc... so what's the point? Really?

These numbers inside the parenthesis are more important than just determining bonuses to Skill checks, for example, when calculating your Defenses (AC, Ref, Fort and Will) or even your attacks, you can start from there. So, as weird as they seem right now, I guess they're standing there to help

 

[Hjorimir]

I'd rather if it was something like:

STR +11 (+24)
DEX +7 (+20)
CON +8 (+21)

and so on...
who cares if it's a 26 or a 27? We've been told alreadythat there's no longer ability damage/drain etc... so what's the point? Really?

These numbers inside the parenthesis are more important than just determining bonuses to Skill checks, for example, when calculating your Defenses (AC, Ref, Fort and Will) or even your attacks, you can start from there. So, as weird as they seem right now, I guess they're standing there to help

Yeah, I would have been happier if 4E had gone with a True20 model on ability scores. As it stands, though, I prefer the way they are listing them (with the skill check listed parenthetically).

 

[tomBitonti]

No changes to base stats?

Hmm, I hadn't realized, but is it true that there will no effects that change your base abilities? No strength draining poisons?

Also, I'm having a little trouble separating the addition of only inherent strength to damage, while adding inherent strength + level modifier to skill checks.

I guess the reasoning is that you add Str + Level Modifier to your attack roll, so adding the level modifier to damage is too much.

Also, will there be no attacks that only use a fraction of the inherent strength bonus? No light or offhand or secondary attacks? No bonus for two-handed weapons?