Monster Formatting

[dante58701]

How many people despise the new format WOTC is using for monsters? The abbreviated formate that they initially used in Dragon magazine...but now their using it in everything.

I think it shows a severe laziness and it doesnt look as nice. So for those who want to use the better more complete format...Im posting it here when I get the time later. I just hate sloppy work from the people who are spose to be professionals.

Comments? Ideas?


Name: (including surname, titles, nicknames)
Creature Type: (and Subtype)
Hit Dice: (and Hit Points)
Initiative:
Speed:
Armor Class: (including touch and flat footed)
Base Attack/Grapple:
Attack:
Full Attack:
Space/Reach:
Special Attacks:
Special Qualities:
Saves: Fort. , Ref. , Will
Abilities: Str , Dex , Con , Int , Wis , Cha
Skills:
Feats: (including a (B) if it is a bonus feat)
Environment:
Organization:
Challenge Rating:
Treasure:
Alignment:
Advancement:
Level Adjustment:

In-Game description

Detailed description

Combat tactics

Special qualities/attacks descriptions.

 

[XCorvis]

I think you're way off the mark. I prefer the new stat block in format. You're right that they did leave a couple of things off (I can't recall what exactly), but if you just add those back in I think it works great. Much easier to read, better sense of organization. It's a little long, but definately worth it.

 

[Land Outcast]

I'll be brief:

Old-> Armor Class: 35 (–1 size, +7 Dex, +19 natural), touch 16, flat-footed 28
New-> AC 35, touch 16, flat-footed 28

Old-> Hit Dice: 20d8+200 (290 hp)
New-> hp 290 (20 HD)

...why?

 

[Fieari]

Dunno. I just add those details back in. They don't take up extra space, after all. They're good for bookkeeping. It's an easy enough task.

I'm glad they took out the old "Attack" line, keeping instead the full attack and ranged attack lines. If I want to know a single attack (for an AoO or whatever), I just look at the first attack of the full attack line... I don't think they've ever been different.

Other things they took out: Organization (how often have you used it, really?), Treasure (okay, so this'd be useful, but you could always include this info under gear or possessions...), Level Adustment (not usually hard to figure out anyway, but it'd be nice to see an official word).

Other than that... well, the new stat block is simply better organized in every way. Attack info together, defense info together, sensory info together... I don't miss having to look through a LONG LONG list of "Special Qualities" to discover it has regen or DR. Put it next to the AC and HP where it belongs!

I used to run monsters underpowered, simply because on a skim of their abilities, I wouldn't notice everything they had... no more.

 

[XCorvis]

Very concise. Why, I couldn't say. Possibly it's an oversight, and possibly it is intentional. The HP/HD one especially may be intentional, because all of that can be (relatively) easily figured out (HD by type plus CON bonus x # HD (or plus construct HP bonus)) and modifying it on the fly is extremely easy. The lack of detail in the AC block is definately a problem.

But the rest of the format I like.

 

[Staffan]

I like the old format better for new monster writeups (which are at least partially intended to be messed with, by adding class levels and HD and templates and stuff), but the new format is better from a "use right now" perspective (for NPCs, monsters encountered in adventures, etc.)

The places where the new format was initially used seemed to agree with this: in Explorer's Handbook, you had NPC stats use the new model and monster writeups the old.

 

[Nyaricus]

The new stat block is great... It's a little unwieldy for noobs because it's a bit bigger and what not, and some details are left out (AC, HP, Power Attack specs, etc) but honestly it's so much better than the old format. Regen and DR are where it should be, Spot and Lisnten Besides Init? Great! And many other small details. Infact, it looks like they actually thought this one out, and learned from the mistakes of the 3.0 statblock. However, some of the indo they left out should not have been, but maybe they'll figure it out....

Also, this more rightfully belongs in General than House Rules, Dante. You might want to ask a mod to move it to it's appropriate place.

 

[Sir Brennen]

There's a Design Diary article about the new stat block that really puts it in perspective. I had an "Oh, wow!" moment as I read the reasoning behind the new organization:

• One section for start of the encounter (what can the monster see, understand and what its init is)
• the next section has stuff to remember for when the PCs attack it (AC, Defenses)
• the next has most of the stuff the monster can do on its turn (attacks, spell like abilities, combat gear)
• a non-combat section (skills, ect.)
• The last is explanatory text for special abilities and the like

And having just one stat block for both the MM and adventures is a beautiful thing, too.

EDIT: Why is this in house rules? :\

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm with the people who think the new format is excellent. I also agree with Land Outcast in the two things 'missing', but I still take the new format over the old. I never ever ran monsters out of the book because of the old format sucked so much wind. Now, I might. At least, I could see purely copying the page rather than retyping it.

 

[the Jester]

I vastly prefer the new stat block. Basically, it's the best-organized stat block for monsters that dnd has ever had: it puts the stuff in a logical order, the order in which you may need it: senses/aura/etc, defense (cuz pcs will get the drop on it sometimes) and then offense. Me likee.