DMG II Statblock - How Is It

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Hate it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

I am in total agreement with this.

Generally I like it, but don't use. I put NPCs on index cards and the new format takes up so much space I can't use it with high-level NPCs.

(I do d20 Modern, but there's a "new" d20 Modern version of the stat block.)

For some weird reason, they put skills before feats. I guess that's because feats are more useful in combat, but I'd rather they not change things without good reason.

 

[Garnfellow]

I find it to be a tremendous improvement in play, particularly with higher level creatures with many abilities. The extra whitespace and logical organization make it much easier for me to find the info I need quickly. I recently ran an encounter using the old-style paragraph glob of data, and it was a huge pain.

I also like that the new format is essentially used for both new monster entries as well as NPC statblocks -- it makes it much easier to cut and paste, and I hated having two completely separate formats.

A couple of the common criticisms of the new format really don't bother me that much:

• It's Too Long - James Jacobs, who probably knows more about these things than anyone else, has written that the new statblock is not actually the huge space hog it would appear to be. I don't think this is nearly the calamity it is often portrayed as being.
• Hit Dice Aren't Broken Out - In a game situation, it's fairly common to need to a creature's total HD, but I can't think of a single instance where I needed to know the exact HD breakdown. In the middle of a hot and heavy combat, while I'm managing 6 spell effects, 8 monsters, and 3 NPCs, I really don't need to waste a few extra beats while I calculate (and then check) 3d8+6 plus 4d6+4 plus 7d12+7 in my head. (It's 14, right?) My impression is that most DMs (and note that EnWorld's population is NOT representative of most DMs) are not math prodigies and don't have the time to add class levels, templates, alternative ability arrays, and other cool mods, and thus never really need the HD breakdown. For those DMs with the time and inclination to make these mods (and come on, aren't we the supah-elite DMs anyway?), I'd don't think it's really that hard to back-calculate the breakdown, unlike skills, for example.

I see this new format as still evolving, though, and some small improvements are probably forthcoming as vestigial features drop off and new ones are added. Why waste space on the Ability line with the word "Ability"? Why not just bold the ability abbreviations, as is done on the saving throw line? And I think some of the common redundancies should be removed -- if "Ride-By Attack" is on the Speed line, and "Combat Expertise" is on the Attack Options line, why repeat them on the feat line, just as combat gear isn't repeated on the Possessions line.

That said, I've been very unimpressed by some of the small changes WotC has tried in recent products; I've seen very little improvement and even a couple steps backward. For my money, the way Paizo uses the format seems to be the current best standard.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

As long as the breakdown of HD is included, I like it and use it in my campaign (with slight modifications).

An example of needing the HD information is when you're using a monster out of the book and want to increase/decrease its HP for whatever reason (e.g., because the monster is the pack leader). First you have to know what type of HD to use, then you have to know what its Con modifier is, and then you have to know about any other special modifiers (e.g., feats or special abilities). It's much, much simpler to just include the HD breakdown.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I find it interesting that the people who like the new statblock can give detailed reasons why they like it, but those who hate it have (so far in this thread) given no reasons why.

 

[Psion]

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.

Not at all. That's exactly my thoughts. Knowing elements that go into a creature's stats are crucial when doing something as simple as casting barkskin on it or giving it armor... you need to know what it's existing modifiers are.

 

[Psion]

I find it interesting that the people who like the new statblock can give detailed reasons why they like it, but those who hate it have (so far in this thread) given no reasons why.

I thought the OP was pretty explicit, and my thoughts are the same.

 

[Bagpuss]

Those few folks that are saying they hate it could you give your reasons why? Do you write up stat blocks for a living or something?

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Love it. Don't care about the hit die type, though. Can't see how that affects anything in play.

Well, ok. It doesn't really effect gameplay. But then, I'm not just looking at the statblock from just a gameplay perspective, either. If I need the straight stats on your run-of-the-mill Balor, then it's fine.

But I'm a guy that likes to tweak things. I'll adjust stats on a monster here, or build one up from scratch. Why obscure the rules? I don't get it. We're trying to teach people how to play, not confuse them even more.

I think HD type should be there, because it's an easy reference to "creature type determines HD type," so if I'm looking at a Balor, know it's an Outsider, and it has d8 HD, then I know that all outsiders have d8 HD. That's a useful reference to me, and given the size of the statblock right now, it does not take up significant space.

But I do miss the AC breakdown, so when I make up my own blocks for NPCs, I put the breakdown back in.

Me too, definitely. Again, useful info that gets obscured. I suppose you could infer the AC breakdown by the Touch AC and Flat-footed AC entries, and then check the Equipment section and see what, if any, armor they're wearing. But I'd really just like to see AC 20 (+2 Armor, +3 Natural, +5 Dex) or whatever.

Again, I like the statblock from a gameplay standpoint, but I have problems with it from a rules standpoint.

 

[Psion]

Those few folks that are saying they hate it could you give your reasons why? Do you write up stat blocks for a living or something?

If I create a creature with non-standard ability scores, magic items, or templates, I don't need the additional design work of reverse engineering the creature's HP and AC breakouts.

To me, one of the single greatest strides of 3e over prior editions is the flexibility of creature design. I don't desire them to detract from this aspect by obscuring the creature's design statistics.

Also, as multiple reviews have show, mistakes creep into stat blocks often in WotC material. Obscuring the details make the mistakes more difficult to spot.