DMG II Statblock - How Is It

[GoodKingJayIII]

So, this has been out for a while, it's standard in Wizard products now. How do people feel about it? What's your play experience with it?

I have to say it's grown on me. I haven't actually been able to use it because I haven't DMed in almost two years, but I've gotten used to the format. Overall I think it's pretty clear and easy to read. There are, however, little things that irk me about the shorthand (or lack thereof).

For instance, I really dislike the super-shorthand. Why give hitpoints but not hit dice/HD type? Or a breakdown of AC? I think the statblock tends to obscure the rules, which I bugs me. I'd like to be able to see the breakdown so I can make changes accordingly. But that's just me.

 

[Nifft]

Mostly good. The lack of HD info annoys me, too.

Cheers, -- N

 

[frankthedm]

Hate it.

 

[pogre]

I'm getting used to it.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I'm of mixed feelings about it, though one thing that really does kind of bug me is redundancy in the stat block. The combat gear and possessions sections seem redundant to me, and often times the Special Actions and Special Attacks/Qualities sections are as well.

Otherwise, I kind of dig it.

 

[XCorvis]

For instance, I really dislike the super-shorthand. Why give hitpoints but not hit dice/HD type? Or a breakdown of AC? I think the statblock tends to obscure the rules, which I bugs me. I'd like to be able to see the breakdown so I can make changes accordingly. But that's just me.

They fixed those two things in the MMIV version, and I think they'll use them in future books. It just makes more sense. Overall, I love it. It's so much easier to read, but much harder to write up because you have to figure out the various places where abilities go.

I think the redundancy is necessary. If a feat gives you a special attack you also need to know it's a feat, so it really needs to be listed in both places. In the end I'd rather have the block have slightly too much info than too little.

 

[MerricB]

Love it. It's so much easier to use in play. The few issues remaining with it are being fixed.

Cheers!

 

[Nyeshet]

Still rather bugged by certain parts of it, but excluding those sections, I am coming to accept it. Like much of what WotC produces, in concept it is fine, but the final product needs a little adjustment before I can make much use of it.

On the other hand, I've been thinking for a few weeks on switching primarily to True20 (albeit using 2d10 instead of a 1d20 when making rolls, and likely using a variant of EoM,R or EoM,ME rather than the True20 magic system), so my view may not be the best for this question.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

They fixed those two things in the MMIV version, and I think they'll use them in future books. It just makes more sense. Overall, I love it. It's so much easier to read, but much harder to write up because you have to figure out the various places where abilities go.

I think the redundancy is necessary. If a feat gives you a special attack you also need to know it's a feat, so it really needs to be listed in both places. In the end I'd rather have the block have slightly too much info than too little.

Yep, more work to write, less work to use. Better if you are likely to hand an adventure over to someone else than if you are only running it for yourself.

The Auld Grump

 

[Wormwood]

Love it love it love it. Elegant and useful.