DUNGEON's NEW STAT BLOCK FORMAT

[Sammael]

Putting boxes around text, perhaps? But it may be a bit too distracting...

 

[jmucchiello]

Bold is used a lot as it is; italics mean something special in D&D-land. Underlining is about all that's left...

In the case of spells already cast, strikethrough should work.

 

[WizarDru]

By the way, I really like the new format. The information I want, right where I want it. I can't tell you how many times I've scanned stat-blocks, trying to find Saves, for example. Now they're right where I can see 'em. I like how it's highlighted based on interaction.

 

[Staffan]

A surprisingly large number of our readers are colorblind, and are not always able to read colored text. We still sometimes do it in headers and stuff, but it's something we've got to keep in mind. If all precast spells are listed in red, and someone can't see red (or whatever), I think that guy would be right to complain.

It could be neat to use as an additional indicator, though. For example, if a cleric has already cast bull's strength before the encounter, his spells could look like this:
Spells: (4/3/1, DC = 11+spell level) 0 - cure minor wounds, guidance, light, vigor; 1 - bless, cure light wounds, doom; 2 - bull's strength.

 

[Chaldfont]

I like this new stat block and I agree with Monte Cook that there ought to be different stat blocks for different NPCs (combat, interaction, etc). I miss the concise descriptions of the AD&D adventures.

When I write up monsters for my game (which is rare--who has the time?), the stuff I need to know are the interesting combat options and how they work along with the things I'm likely to forget (like Dodge feat, rarely used spells, etc). I'd like to see those things highlighted in bold.

I like that the new stat blocks include stat changes caused by spells, magic items and abilities likely to be used in the fight. My group does this for the PCs already and if I don't do it for the foes, I'll be swamped in-game looking stuff up.

Anything to make higher-level play easier. My PCs just hit 13th level, and its almost more work than fun to run combats.

 

[S'mon]

Well, it may not be obvious...

I think we agree, though - minimal stat blocks (something like "Rory Jenks, Blacksmith (LN Male human expert 3, craft (blacksmithing) +10, knowledge (local) +5") are cool. The question seems to be "what is 'minimal?'" (The follow-up seems to be "When do we use minimal stat blocks?") And if they're not minimal, it seems they should be comprehensive for flexibility (combat/social/resource generation). And if they're either, they should be accurate.

Basic minimal stat block:

Orc hd 1 hp 5 AC 14 spd 30' Init +0 ATT+4 dam 1d8+3 (axe) Fort +2 Will-1 Ref+0

- It could be twice as long as that & still be ok.

 

[Glyfair]

Basic minimal stat block:

Orc hd 1 hp 5 AC 14 spd 30' Init +0 ATT+4 dam 1d8+3 (axe) Fort +2 Will-1 Ref+0

- It could be twice as long as that & still be ok.

It would have to be, at least.

The wizard cast web, what's the strength check? Does he have escape artist (we'll assume he doesn't)? Grease is cast, what's his balance check? Dex check?

Sorcerer is making a ranged touch attack. How much of that AC is because of armor?

Players can do a lot of things that require skill checks, referring to stats (what if the PCs can do stat drain), level checks, etc.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yeah, I thought Kim Mohan was a woman for years too. And Tracy Hickman, and Sandy Peterson, and Lyn Williss...


glass.

Heh, I was the opposite - Sandra Garrity used to be listed as 'Sandy' and I assumed that she was male... until I met her.

The Auld Grump

 

[S'mon]

It would have to be, at least.

The wizard cast web, what's the strength check? Does he have escape artist (we'll assume he doesn't)? Grease is cast, what's his balance check? Dex check?

Sorcerer is making a ranged touch attack. How much of that AC is because of armor?

I normally include stats that are not +0, for the orc that'd be ST+3 WIS-1. Unless part of the AC is _not_ armour you don't need to list it.

 

[SJ]

As a DM, I'm juggling a ton of information; the less I have to hunt around for info, the faster the game goes.

First, I like the new format.

I'm really interested to see where this goes. I DM 80% of the time, and have done so for a long while, so I'm no slouch when it comes to quick rulings or book references. But I admit that in my last few sessions I've noticed I spend a lot of time looking for info in my stat blocks/notes/monster sheets/sourcebooks instead of using it.

I do a lot of prep. My prep time is probably 2x actual game time, but it is rarely the hours before the dice roll and I forget what nasty trick I had planned. I cry a little every time my carefully planned villain gets wacked in 2 rounds and I realize later he never used his full arsenal.

I like Monte's point about streamlining the different blocks for different purposes; almost all of my NPC's either talk (so I don't really care what their stats are, only their personality and interesting items) or try to kick the otyugh out of the PC's (I want all combat-specific info). The complicating issue seems to be what is 'useful' to a wide world of DM's.

Isn't the whole idea of this information that it's supposed to keep me from having to look it up or create it myself? I'll confess to not using a monster/NPC's special ability because I didn't remember what it did and didn't want to have to look it up. It's a fact that whitespace enhances clarity, especially with text fragments. That's why I like the new Dungeon format. And like many others here, hope it's not the be-all end-all, but another step into helping us poor, beleagured DM's entertain the undeserving masses.