New Monster Stat Format - Any Good?

[JimAde]

I like the fact that they broke out feats and skills. I always do this in my stat blocks but WotC always lumped them together. I think I like it overall.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I like the set up. The information for before-combat encounters like stealth and diplomacy are described first, then defense, then attack, then everything else is rounded out. I find it is a LOT easier to find important bits of info like ability scores, CR, etc in this new format. I will probably use it when statting out NPCs from now on.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

During design, it's important to note where they come from, but in play you're really only hitting one of three different AC's.

IME, sometimes you catch someone by surprise with a ranged touch attack or you sunder his shield, or he has Two-Weapon Defense, or something that's not being mentioned there

But more seriously, I see mistakes in AC all the time. Everyone can do simple math, so seeing the whole breakdown would eliminate the mistakes.

 

[ptolemy18]

Natural armor adds to AC and Flat-Footed, not to touch. Deflection adds to all. Dodge bonuses add to all except Flat-Footed. Magical barding adds to all.

During design, it's important to note where they come from, but in play you're really only hitting one of three different AC's.

Yes, but what if a monster is capable of buffing itself up with spells? Then you have to know what's redundant and what isn't. :/

Jason

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I would have thought that 'scent' would have been put under the 'senses' heading. When I run a creature I need to know what it can 'see' so it can react to the perceived situation, having this in one part of the stat-block would make it easier I think.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Btw that stat block is still too cumbersome for my liking, unless it is a prime enemy in the midst of play there is still too much detail.

Get rid of: all stats other than str for trip; special qualities can be omitted altogether as it is a double-up if scent is mentioned earlier; the imp. init. feat needs no mention; strategy should mention that it will bay at first opportunity; *skills notes can be omitted entirely.

This comes from the pov that it is an adventure stat-block _not_ a MM write-up, which needs completeness.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

A lot of people seem to think that adventure stat-blocks should be less detailed for monster manual writeups--for those people, I have a question:

How do you run adventures? I mean that literally, not as a sarcastic put down. Myself, I typically adapt any adventure I run to the level of the party and the details of my setting. This calls for changing some plot points, altering some NPCs, and altering monsters if not, from time to time, substituting them. I can imagine that full detail might not be necessary if you ran a more or less iconic adventuring group through a dungeon at the recommended level, but is that really the way you use adventures in your games? I've never done that myself.

Second, do you expect to have a full and complete statblock somewhere in the module? I could live with a set of simplified statblocks in the text, on preprinted initiative cards in the back of the module, or just in a handy combat sheet as long as I got complete statblocks information somewhere in the module. But the complete stat information is non-negotiable.

 

[delericho]

I like it, if only because I can now actually find the saving throw modifiers! For some reason, I could never find them using the old format.

That said, it's not perfect. There should be a break-down of AC somewhere in the block, for all the reasons mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

How do you run adventures? I mean that literally, not as a sarcastic put down. Myself, I typically adapt any adventure I run to the level of the party and the details of my setting. This calls for changing some plot points, altering some NPCs, and altering monsters if not, from time to time, substituting them. I can imagine that full detail might not be necessary if you ran a more or less iconic adventuring group through a dungeon at the recommended level, but is that really the way you use adventures in your games? I've never done that myself.

Obviously speaking solely for myself, I run the encounter self contained, i.e. the most obvious bonuses are already applied and the least likely are omitted entirely; I rely on the the law of averages to cancel out any benefits/penalties to my friends. In the case of this Yeth Hound I'd run him at full capacity if single & challenging but as a pack member I would give him a generic make-over. As a person I cannot remember things like the dodge feat or combat reflexes if the character is not built around these & so all my npc's have flat bonus feats, magic items & spell selections.

I also do not stray too far at all from the core rules because noone in our circle of friends has ever done the full 20 levels of core d&d. 4d6dl or 25pt buy, standard wealth, level loss, the whole she-bang by the books as close to playable as possible. However encounters only need to have a believable look to them because too much detail is lost on me.

Special encounters are custom built and (covertly) inserted to counteract any metagame assumptions from creeping in once the players inevitably read my style. In this case you can be certain I have combed the stat block looking for some sneaky trick to pull. I also make a point to place an overwhelming encounter by every 3rd or 4th session (before a level-up) to foreshadow future challenges & to prove my point that higher level characters must have the ability to spot lost cause.

Second, do you expect to have a full and complete statblock somewhere in the module? I could live with a set of simplified statblocks in the text, on preprinted initiative cards in the back of the module, or just in a handy combat sheet as long as I got complete statblocks information somewhere in the module. But the complete stat information is non-negotiable.

Yeah I agree, you have to have the complete breakdown somewhere at hand. Someone is going to do something unanticipated & you've got to resolve it, preferably without a handwaved ruling which needs to be reassessed after the session.