New Stat Block... With Pictures...

[webrunner]

Yes.

Unequivocally, yes.

The stablock should describe the monster. The appearance of the monsters and where it usually is found is vital.

My most virulent criticisms of the 4E monsters is that, especially for the more obscure monsters, and especially obscure monsters without illustrations or minis, the players never had a good idea in their minds' eyes what they were fighting.

As a player I need to know: What physical shape does this threat take?

As a DM I need to know: Where can this threat credibly be found?

This is good stuff and overdue.

Yes, this information is important.
But it isn't mechanical which is what the stat blocks should be.

Have a 'vitals block' to go with it if you have to, but don't tell me what color shirt that orc is wearing, that's my decision.


(also it's a fact that my players like it when i sketch my own silly drawings to go with them)

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

There's a pretty significant difference between a "stat block" and a "monster write-up." The latter can include anything you want in addition to the stat block. While the ecologies are usually painful and more groan-worthy than usable for a biologist like myself, they sometimes spark ideas, and that's great. Bring them on. But the actual stat block needs to be concise, portable, and preferably mutable if I feel like it.

That said, as long as the picture is more icon than full-page spread, rock on. As has been said, that's a handy way to speed up at the table reference.

 

[the Jester]

My most virulent criticisms of the 4E monsters is that, especially for the more obscure monsters, and especially obscure monsters without illustrations or minis, the players never had a good idea in their minds' eyes what they were fighting.

Same here!

There are a number of 4e monsters with no pic or description. I find that to be really sloppy. I love the monster design of 4e, but for God's sake, tell me what it looks like.

 

[Klaus]

Same here!

There are a number of 4e monsters with no pic or description. I find that to be really sloppy. I love the monster design of 4e, but for God's sake, tell me what it looks like.

You can imagine how hard it was for me to do some of the counters. I often had to go to earlier editions to find the look of a creature.

 

[samursus]

Yeah! What was up with the decision to leave out illustrations of some monsters? I could never understand (outside of the obvious space savings) what compelled them to feel that it would be okay to just have vague (or in some cases zero) descriptions of monsters at leave it at that.

 

[the Jester]

You can imagine how hard it was for me to do some of the counters. I often had to go to earlier editions to find the look of a creature.

Seriously, it's a good thing I'm old-skool and hardcore enough to know what a lot of those things look like, or I wouldn't be able to use them without feeling stupid.

 

[Dice4Hire]

It' apparently the same art that will be on the tokens.

While I agree I prefer my stat blocks small and usable, this I think will actually be something that SHOULD be in stat block.

Yes, I agree. Good point.

I would have just xped but I gotta spread more xp around.

 

[surfarcher]

I hope they make it something you can switch off and on easily.

It's something I'd love to have browsing the Monster Builder... But once I've pasted the RTF into my encounter I'd rather have the space, thank you very much.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah! What was up with the decision to leave out illustrations of some monsters? I could never understand (outside of the obvious space savings) what compelled them to feel that it would be okay to just have vague (or in some cases zero) descriptions of monsters at leave it at that.

Pure and simply, cost. From my personal publishing experience, monster manuals are the most costly book to make. Artwork for a single creature can cost between $10 on the cheap up to $30 or more. Multiply by that by a few hundred, and you can see why they don't have illos for every monster under the sun.

 

[Aegeri]

Yes.

Unequivocally, yes.

The stablock should describe the monster. The appearance of the monsters and where it usually is found is vital.

No it shouldn't. The actual stat block should be the creatures stats and what it does in combat. As concise and to the point as it can be, to ensure that the DM knows what the creature can do and actually find it. Some solos and other monsters are already getting to the point where they are very complicated and long looking stat blocks. We don't need to extend this.

The monsters write up, what is in the book should actually describe this but not the stat block (they have distinctly different jobs). The monster write up conversely shouldn't have stats in it - it should be fluff and description. One of the main ways Wizards has failed a bit here is frequently failing to provide an illustration or a decent description of some of the monsters. It can be extremely hard to work out what some monsters are supposed to look like based off the descriptions (or more often complete lack of a description and picture) in the books at times.