DUNGEON's NEW STAT BLOCK FORMAT

[James Jacobs]

Since I'm working under the assumption that you're referring to my reviews (I'm the only one I know of that habitually lists "50 tiny little stat block errors" in a review of a product), I'll respond. It seems like your "test" analogy is assuming an English essay test, where the teacher can give you partial credit for the things you got right in your explanation. I look at it more as a math test: either you arrived at the correct answer, or you didn't. So if a given stat block has 100 things listed, and two of them are wrong, your "answer" isn't graded as "98% correct" - it's just "incorrect." And certainly not all stat block errors can be qualified as "tiny little."

In any case, I'm not trying to sway you to my views, merely explain where I'm coming from.

I agree... not all stat block errors are tiny and little. Some can be huge; the range of the night twist's despair song ability is a great example. As is the hit dice listed for the pyrolisk back in the 1st edition Monster Manual II (they left out a "+," so instead of the pyrolisk having 4+3 Hit Dice it had 43 hit dice... gah!).

As for my "test" analogy, I can see where you're coming from, John. I just feel that calling an entire stat block "incorrect" because someone forgot to account for the –1 size modifier to AC and attacks seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Anyway, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, John. I certainly printed out your list of MM III eratta when I saw it and kept it stuffed in my work copy of MM III (until WotC released the official errata). I certainly hope you do continue to do your reviews along these lines, if only to keep us honest and on our toes so we don't get TOO lazy in the stat block war!

 

[A'koss]

Now, forgive my ignorance here, but aren't there decent programs out there now that can generate accurate statblocks for NPCs and (for the most part) Monsters as well? I mean, even if the program got you 90% of the way there and 10% you had to figure out by hand, I'd think that'd be well worth it. In this day and age I'm puzzled why you'd want to do it by hand (for publication) considering the inherent complexity.

Are they too complicated? Don't meet enough requirements?

Just curious...

 

[John Cooper]

James: Okay, sounds like we're cool, then. I can certainly see your point of view, as well, and you certainly have a lot more people sharing your view than I have sharing mine. (If this WAS a "stat block war," my "army" would be destroyed pretty quickly!)

In any case, keep up the good work on Dungeon. I've really liked what I've seen recently.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Now, forgive my ignorance here, but aren't there decent programs out there now that can generate accurate statblocks for NPCs and (for the most part) Monsters as well? I mean, even if the program got you 90% of the way there and 10% you had to figure out by hand, I'd think that'd be well worth it. In this day and age I'm puzzled why you'd want to do it by hand (for publication) considering the inherent complexity.

Are they too complicated? Don't meet enough requirements?

Just curious...

Well, speaking just for myself...

Nobody has yet made such a program available that fits my two required parameters:

1) 100% accurate and error-free.

2) Easy to use.

Here's the thing, though. Even if someone did, how would we know? How can we know that the stat block spit out by MS Character 2.0 is accurate?

We can't. That's why most companies--such as Paizo, WotC, SSS, etc.--require that you show your work when you turn in your material. And once I have to show my work anyway, it's easier to just do it by hand from scratch, than to do it with a program and then try to retroengineer the mechanics behind it.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm neutral on the new stat block format - I neither like nor dislike it.

I do, however, dislike it for Dungeon magazine. If it's longer and takes more space, then that's a Bad Thing. Already they're telling us that we get fewer high level adventures because of the size of stat blocks. This just makes it worse... thumbs down.

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.

This is a far too myopic view for my taste. How do you know that the NPC won't be a recurring character, or used in other ways based on the actions of the PCs? Either full stats or no stats, for me.

 

[Mouseferatu]

[Random Thought]

I wonder if the solution, for future editions, isn't to have a more comprehensive list of sample NPCs in the DMG. Maybe, say, two or three different examples of each class, with stats at every level from 1 to 20. Then, for modules, Dungeon, future products, etc., many of the NPCs could simply say "Fighter 5 (option 2)." The "stat block" could simply be a list of changes from the standard (such as racial modifiers if the character is an elf, but the standard is human, or a list of magic items).

I wouldn't want to see every NPC done this way, but perhaps it would work for the majority of them, with only truly important (or deliberately different) characters having their own stats.

Note that I'm not necessarily a proponent of this idea. I can see a number of downsides to it. I'm just tossing it out there for consideration.

[/Random Thought]

 

[Vocenoctum]

[Random Thought]

I wonder if the solution, for future editions, isn't to have a more comprehensive list of sample NPCs in the DMG. Maybe, say, two or three different examples of each class, with stats at every level from 1 to 20. Then, for modules, Dungeon, future products, etc., many of the NPCs could simply say "Fighter 5 (option 2)." The "stat block" could simply be a list of changes from the standard (such as racial modifiers if the character is an elf, but the standard is human, or a list of magic items).
[/Random Thought]

This sounds like a good idea, but I doubt it'd work for a WotC product.

But, I could see someone coming out with a DM Screen with a couple slots on it. The coming out with "combat cards" for a plethora of pregenerated PC's of varying sorts. The cards could slide into the DM's screen for easy reference during game.

I currently have a little stand with a Cookbook holder on it. I use it for holding Monster Stat's at eye level, but still out of the way. I think a better solution is out there for making the info easily accessible.

 

[jgsugden]

I have been making my own stat blocks since 3.0 came out. When I look at the 'new' stat blocks from the DMG II, I notice a lot of similarities between my blocks and the 'new blocks':

1.) Precombat information is grouped together at the top of the characvter sheet (initiative, skills related to spotting hiding PCs, etc ...)
2.) Combat information is grouped together (Basic combat abilities with all optional combat abilities listed as combat options, regardless fo whether those options come from feats, skills, items, or class abilities)
3.) Alternative stats presented when rage, potions, or other temporary effects are in place.

I've found my similar layout to be very useful. It will certainly take me less time to prep materials if the new format is consistently used as I'm just as happy to use it as my current system.

 

[James Jacobs]

I do, however, dislike it for Dungeon magazine. If it's longer and takes more space, then that's a Bad Thing. Already they're telling us that we get fewer high level adventures because of the size of stat blocks. This just makes it worse... thumbs down.

Not true; we have no plans to decrease the number of high-level adventures in Dungeon. We'll continue to print at least one adventure for level 13+ characters in every issue; I'm not sure who "they" are who say that we'll be printing less high-level adventures in the magazine... but I'm happy to say that "they" are flat-out wrong.

The new stat block does indeed take up a little bit more room than the old stat block. However, multi-part adventures (Age of Worms, Shackled City, Shadows of Istivin, and Shards of Eberron) have proven to be much more popular than we anticipated. Old wisdom held that splitting adventures up over multiple issues would annoy the readers. Based on what we've been hearing, this couldn't be more wrong. As long as the individual parts can still be used as stand-alone adventures, you can expect several really long adventures in the magazine in the future.

 

[A'koss]

Well, speaking just for myself...

Nobody has yet made such a program available that fits my two required parameters:

1) 100% accurate and error-free.

2) Easy to use.

Here's the thing, though. Even if someone did, how would we know? How can we know that the stat block spit out by MS Character 2.0 is accurate?

So none of them are error-free, even today? I'm very surprised actually. As far as checking for accuracy, I assume you simply look over the stat block just as anyone would - the information should all be there to check against. If an error does crop up, you fix it at the program level, then you know it will never happen again. If an error makes it to publication, you'll only get called on it once.

Ease of use problems? Fair enough. I can't see that being an insurmountable problem though, but if it does exist I can see it turning off many from using it.

We can't. That's why most companies--such as Paizo, WotC, SSS, etc.--require that you show your work when you turn in your material. And once I have to show my work anyway, it's easier to just do it by hand from scratch, than to do it with a program and then try to retroengineer the mechanics behind it.

Unfortunately, showing your work doesn't guarantee accuracy either. Stat blocks beg for automation and quite frankly, I'm shocked there is no viable solution out there after all these years.