DUNGEON's NEW STAT BLOCK FORMAT

[Droogie]

Nice, very nice. Basically you get the top priority info in the first section, defense in the second, offense in the third, and everything else in the fourth. Very intuitive.

Noticed one thing- the undead cleric should have the effects of her amulet displayed in the defense section. Looks like they forgot it.

 

[Staffan]

I like it. When I write up NPCs and monsters for my own use and when taking notes for running published adventures, I like to put them in the same format as the MM (minus some of the lines, like terrain and stuff) because I hate the normal statblocks. This is an improvement on those.

 

[nerfherder]

Will 4th edition move to bonuses instead of the extra step in calculation? Will you have stats like this: Str+3, Dex+1,Con+2,Int-3,Wis+0,Cha+0. Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, why we stick to the 3-18 ability scores instead of using a bonus?
...

You mean like Jonathan Tweet used in Ars Magica? What's that guy doing these days...?

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

You still need the actual stats (not the mods) for purposes of enhancements, pre-reqs, and future advancement. And if it's not in the stat block, where would it be? Personally, however, I do write in the mods when making my own stat blocks, especially when the stats are way higher than those you would normally see (like, into the high 20s and 30s).

 

[Simplicity]

I wonder what exactly is the distinction between "combat gear" and possessions.
One of the stat blocks lists a brooch of shielding (combat gear, no?) in the possessions list. One of them has an amulet of displacement in both the combat gear list and the possessions list (which I'm sure is an error).

Maybe it'll just take some time for everyone to get used to writing these things properly,
but I have to say the combat gear section alone makes this stat block format USEFUL.
I can't think of how many times my NPCs have died bitter, ironic deaths while their cure serious wounds potions sit idly by waiting to be looted.

The extra space problem sucks, but it's probably not too bad in the three column format.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I think "My strength is +4" sounds even dorkier than "my strength is 18!"

You're playing Dungeons & Dragons, pal, if you are trying to be "cool" then you failed your saving throw.

 

[Monte At Home]

Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, why we stick to the 3-18 ability scores instead of using a bonus?

Basically, no. This came up in 3rd Edition design. Twice, actually. And we considered it very strongly. But we ruled it out because we were afraid it would be perceived as a really big change (when in fact it really isn't).

It's easy for me to look at things now and say we should have done it. But considering that the times (and opinions) were different then, I think it's a decision I can still stand behind.

But yeah, I'd be surprised if it survived to another edition.


And to be on topic: I like the new stat blocks too. I don't love them, but they're a clear step forward. There's still too much clutter on them. When I look at the guy (Filge) on page 45 of the new issue, it strikes me that we probably don't need to know that he's got Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion as a feat. And is he likely, as an NPC, to make a Knowledge (religion) check during the encounter? And I know that as a reader I don't need to know that he's got the Toughness feat. But these are minor quibbles. Like I wrote on my site, I think it's awesome that they're willing to reexamine this kind of issue and make changes.

 

[A'koss]

Basically, no. This came up in 3rd Edition design. Twice, actually. And we considered it very strongly. But we ruled it out because we were afraid it would be perceived as a really big change (when in fact it really isn't).

It's easy for me to look at things now and say we should have done it. But considering that the times (and opinions) were different then, I think it's a decision I can still stand behind.

But yeah, I'd be surprised if it survived to another edition.

Interesting... To be honest though, I wouldn't be surprised if it survived another edition out of nostalgic attachment. There's something about having an 18 in an ability score that just says "D&D"...

And to be on topic: I like the new stat blocks too. I don't love them, but they're a clear step forward. There's still too much clutter on them. When I look at the guy (Filge) on page 45 of the new issue, it strikes me that we probably don't need to know that he's got Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion as a feat. And is he likely, as an NPC, to make a Knowledge (religion) check during the encounter? And I know that as a reader I don't need to know that he's got the Toughness feat. But these are minor quibbles. Like I wrote on my site, I think it's awesome that they're willing to reexamine this kind of issue and make changes.

I see where you're coming from but if you didn't see the useless feats and skills, how would you know it wasn't an unintended omission? There are way too many editing mistakes in d20 stat blocks (from everyone, mind) and this would only make designers lazier in tracking them down IMO (now you can hide mistakes in "omitted" skills and feats).

 

[EricNoah]

DONE

See new download in original post (page two of the download is Arodnap..CR 19)

JH

Thanks!

Another suggestion to the Dungeon staff if you have your ears on; any magic item or condition that grants a miss chance should be called out near the AC area (in my opinion). Example: that lich with the displacement amulet -- would be handy to know that there's a 50% miss chance.

 

[scourger]

The 3-18 ability score range has to stay. It's too important for random ability score generation by rolling dice.