JVisgaitis
Explorer
There was a thread before the message board crash about the new stat block. Is that thread still around or ws it lost? Who would one email for permission to use the new statblock?
New Wizard's Statblock
- Thread starter JVisgaitis
- Start date
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I'm almost positive that thread is lost. 
There was some general idea that WotC needed to be emailed about this, but I'm not certain that's iron-clad. Amalara, for instance, used the new stat block format in their product Dungeon Dive 7: Spawning Pits of the Tomb Bats, and I can't find any notations in the text about having to get permission from WotC to do so.
There was some general idea that WotC needed to be emailed about this, but I'm not certain that's iron-clad. Amalara, for instance, used the new stat block format in their product Dungeon Dive 7: Spawning Pits of the Tomb Bats, and I can't find any notations in the text about having to get permission from WotC to do so.
Ashardalon
First Post
Google Cache still had it.
[sblock]HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 08:19 PM
I've been seeing the new, extended statblock, featured in Dungeon and the newer Wizards products, popping up in some 3rd-party products here and there (for example, Green Ronin has announced they'll be using the new statblock in their Bleeding Edge line). I've never seen the statblock pop up in any OGC from WotC, though.
Wouldn't using the new statblock be considered infriging on their trade dress, and thus violating the OGL? If not, please explain why. I'm just trying to understand the issue.
Kosala
01-10-06, 08:37 PM
An excellent question. Someone knowledgeable should feel free to explain that since we are thinking of using it in upcoming products.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 08:39 PM
We used the new statblock format in Tell It To My Axe! I confess I didn't even think twice about a trade dress issue, but I'm quite confident it's not a problem. First, I don't think it rises to the level of trade dress; it's less a visually identifying badge and more a method of organizing information. Second, I'd be shocked if WotC didn't want people to use it.
Mouseferatu
01-10-06, 08:50 PM
First, I don't think it rises to the level of trade dress; it's less a visually identifying badge and more a method of organizing information.
That was my impression as well. It's just a means of presenting and organizing text; nothing proprietary about it.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 08:51 PM
To elaborate: To qualify as trade dress, the quality in question must be non-functional. I don't think a stat block format qualifies in the regard.
Man-thing
01-10-06, 09:21 PM
When did it become "okay" to do what WOTC does in one of its "books". I thought all ogl and d20 producers had to work from the SRD and MSRD.
Henry
01-10-06, 09:26 PM
Even beyond the fact that WotC has been making rumblings that they want this block to propagate, you could VERY well use the "phonebook" argument on this. There is precedent for this in prior legal cases, but I'll be darned if I recall the specific cases now.
EDIT - my mistake; the legal cases I was thinking about actually concerned data formats of phone book information on a software program. It's still worth getting an answer from WotC Legal for safety's sake, though.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 09:34 PM
When did it become "okay" to do what WOTC does in one of its "books". I thought all ogl and d20 producers had to work from the SRD and MSRD.
It's always been okay to do "something" that WotC does in one of its books. E.g., just because WotC uses Time New Roman for font doesn't mean its off limits to other publishers. Just because WotC uses a two-column layout.... etc.
The OGL limits content use to what's in the SRD. "Trade dress" is also limited by (IIRC) both the OGL and the d20 License, but that's redundant. Trade dress infringement is problematic by virtue of federal law. The question is whether or not a stat block format is trade dress. I don't think so.
Man-thing
01-10-06, 09:44 PM
Why wouldn't the new stat block format be considered content? Surely the explanation of the stat block format is content?
Eternalknight
01-10-06, 10:23 PM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 10:24 PM
Thanks for the thoughts, I'd welcome more to see if we can figure this out.
So far WotC hasn't raised the issue, so it's not big deal as of yet. I've sent the following email to Rich Redman at WotC asking for an answer to the question.
Hello, Rich. I've a question about the new WotC/Dungeon statblock and its use by 3rd-party publishers.
In short, can we? The new statblock has never been released in any OGC from Wizards, just in Dungeon and some new D&D products. Would the new statblock format be considered "trade dress" and thus be off-limits to those using the OGL/d20 License?
Does Wizards care if 3rd-party publishers start using the new statblock? And if they don't, is it because it's something that is outside the OGL to protect or because they are granting everyone permission to copy the format without the need to check with WotC?
The issue is being discussed at EN World and we all would appreciate an official answer. Thanks.
My gut feeling is that since it is not included in any OGC from WotC it is off-limits to us. I understand that it is merely a way to organize information, but the statblock has a very specific form, shape and flow to itself, down to using bold lines to separate certain groups of information. Another example of the same question would be the city statblock found in the DMG. Leaving aside the specific descriptions they use for describing power bases, etc., the city statblock presents a way to organize information about an urban center. Yet this statblock is closed content and cannot be used, despite the fact that I have seen it pop up here and there in products (to be fair, it was in early products, not something I see a lot anymore).
Given that WotC has rarely intervened with users of the OGL I don't know if its that the statblock as a means to organize information is not something that can be closed, or if that they just haven't noticed or don't feel like pursuing the issue.
just because WotC uses Time New Roman for font doesn't mean its off limits to other publishers.
No, but for example, using the Pterra font, or the adventure icons dingbats, is something I consider off-limits as expressions of their trade dress, so it's very fluid, unfortunately.
My interest in this is not merely curiosity, as it seems more and more publishers are shifting to the new statblock and I need to make a decision for my company.
Man-thing
01-10-06, 10:26 PM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
That's an interesting question. I'm pretty sure there wasn't one in the MSRD until the Modern Arcana material was added. I'm not sure about the fantasy SRD though.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 10:38 PM
No, but for example, using the Pterra font, or the adventure icons dingbats, is something I consider off-limits as expressions of their trade dress, so it's very fluid, unfortunately.
I disagree (I think). Fonts themselves are proprietary. Whoever owns the Pterra font could license it to whomever, and they would have every right to use that font, imho. (Of course, if the Pterra font is owned by WotC that ends the debate; hence, my "I think.") I think this conclusion has to be true; to conclude otherwise would constitute an unfair restraint of trade. Logos, layout, etc. are trade dress--not the very foundations of written text.
HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 10:46 PM
Official reply from Rich Redman at Wizards:
Subject: RE: Question about the new statblock
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:19:30 -0800
From: "Redman, Rich" <Rich.Redman@wizards.com>
To: daniel@highmoonmedia.com
EN World is not the place to discuss the OGL or d20 License. I mean, people are welcome to discuss them anywhere they want, any way they want – that should go without saying. It does mean that it’s not where anyone should expect to find an official answer.
However, you asked me, so I’ll tell you that it is off-limits until the SRD gets updated, and I’ll tell you that Andy Smith (TheAndy™) has accepted an additional work assignment to start another round of adding material to the SRD. I don’t know what all will be included, but I’ll make a point of asking that the current stat block be part of it. It probably already is, but there’s no harm in double-checking.
Rich Redman
Assistant Brand Manager, Licensing
Wizards of the Coast
425-204-7224
Two very important things in the email:
1. The new statblock is off-limits per official WotC reply.
2. The SRD will be getting a new update some time in the future, to which I say WOOHOO!
HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 10:48 PM
I disagree (I think). Fonts themselves are proprietary. Whoever owns the Pterra font could license it to whomever, and they would have every right to use that font, imho. (Of course, if the Pterra font is owned by WotC that ends the debate; hence, my "I think.") I think this conclusion has to be true; to conclude otherwise would constitute an unfair restraint of trade. Logos, layout, etc. are trade dress--not the very foundations of written text.
Not disagreeing with you on the ownership of fonts. I guess the issue is whether the choice of a particular font forms part of the trade dress, though that's another topic altogether.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 10:56 PM
I commend them on their quick response.
While I happen to disagree with Rich's assessment (and note that he doesn't offer an explanation as to why), it sounds like it will be moot in short order. And, for the record, had I known that was their position I wouldn't have used it in TITMA. I'm not trying to be territorial about the matter and, of course, never want to piss off the 500-pound gorilla.
I do take exception to Rich's contention that WotC's position on the OGL or d20 License is somehow more valid or more binding than anyone else's. The documents speak for themselves at this point. While Rich is entitled to his viewpoint on such matters it has no more legal relevance than my own.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 10:58 PM
Not disagreeing with you on the ownership of fonts. I guess the issue is whether the choice of a particular font forms part of the trade dress, though that's another topic altogether.
That I agree with. Font certainly can be a component of trade dress. No question.
JimAde
01-10-06, 11:07 PM
I shouldn't even have to say IANAL, but...IANAL.
But, come on. Look at the headers of the e-mail
Subject: RE: Question about the new statblock
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:19:30 -0800
From: "Redman, Rich" <Rich.Redman@wizards.com>
To: daniel@highmoonmedia.com
Is Tim Berners-Lee (or whoever arranged e-mail info in that format first) going to sue Microsoft for using it? No. More relevantly, is WotC able to sue me because I create an OGL character sheet that lists the stats in the order STR,DEX,CON,INT,WIS,CHA? No. If the OGL didn't exist they could sue over the fact that the stats are called those names, I suppose, but not the order and arrangement of their presentation.
All the labels/terms/concepts in the statblock are open content, aren't they? If so, I don't see how you can possibly say that putting them in a given order is separate intellectual property. Seems silly to me.
On the other hand, Rich Redman is not WotC's legal department and I suppose it makes sense for him to give the most conservative answer he can, since it's much easier to loosen up later than to take back something more liberal. I certainly appreciate his getting back to you so quickly.
Eternalknight
01-10-06, 11:16 PM
That's an interesting question. I'm pretty sure there wasn't one in the MSRD until the Modern Arcana material was added. I'm not sure about the fantasy SRD though.
I just had a cursory glance at the fantasy SRD and couldn't see the old stat block in there anywhere. It was only a quick glance though, so I may have missed it.
But, if it isn't in there, there are a lot of people in potential trouble!
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 02:39 AM
On the other hand, Rich Redman is not WotC's legal department and I suppose it makes sense for him to give the most conservative answer he can, since it's much easier to loosen up later than to take back something more liberal.
Well, the reason I asked Rich is because he is the new person in charge of OGL issues, since Andy Smith was moved to another department. I actually found it surprising that it would be Andy doing the SRD updates to come, given his move. I understand that Rich is not legal, but I figured he'd be the contact person to go to.
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 02:48 AM
While I happen to disagree with Rich's assessment (and note that he doesn't offer an explanation as to why), it sounds like it will be moot in short order. And, for the record, had I known that was their position I wouldn't have used it in TITMA. I'm not trying to be territorial about the matter and, of course, never want to piss off the 500-pound gorilla.
I honestly don't think anyone really knew about their position on the matter. Frankly, I think it's a really minor thing, but there was something about it that kept bugging me, which is why I brought up the thread here and the email to Rich. I guess for products that are already done a quick email to WotC could take care of things (though, given their track record, I honestly don't know that they would have known or have cared to pursue anything) and hopefully the update to the SRD will take care of things very quickly. I think that it is good for everyone to follow one standard, and for better or for worse, it is up to WotC to set up what that standard is.
Voadam
01-11-06, 03:48 AM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
WotC never put out any OGC modules or anything OGC that uses the old short reference statblocks, only the MM style stat block for monsters.
I think the department you need to contact is WotC legal.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 03:53 AM
Why wouldn't the new stat block format be considered content? Surely the explanation of the stat block format is content?
It's content in the sense that yes, it's contained in the product. "Content" in the legal sense wherein copyright laws would recognize it as something that can be protected? While I've no doubt WotC would win by attrition in any such case, I doubt they'd otherwise ever be able to go the distance on such a thing versus anyone with similar resources. A stat block is a bunch of non-words--short forms--in a format. Just as you can't copyright a 3 x 3 cell table and declare it content, I'd like to see their basis for claiming the format of a stat block as something that's protected.
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 04:07 AM
I guess the next question, then, is: do we all use the new statblock format regardless of? I think there are good points on both sides, those understanding it to be trade dress and those understading it to be simple format for the organization of words.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 04:36 AM
I guess the next question, then, is: do we all use the new statblock format regardless of? I think there are good points on both sides, those understanding it to be trade dress and those understading it to be simple format for the organization of words.Ya know what? I haven't even purchased a WotC product in about 6 months so I haven't even seen it yet
To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (consumers associate it with a single source). It must be instantaneously identifiable to the consumer. It must also be non-functional (and a stat block most certainly is functional.)
Henry
01-11-06, 03:33 PM
To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (consumers associate it with a single source). It must be instantaneously identifiable to the consumer. It must also be non-functional (and a stat block most certainly is functional.)
To be fair, right at this moment the new stat block meets the first two of the three criteria. WotC and Paizo (licensed from WotC) have been the only ones using it, and by that fact it's identifiable to the consumer as "WotC." However, if it's reasonable to expect it to be OGC within the next six months or so, then I'm not sure it would change too many publishers' plans. If it were a year or so away, it might be different.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 03:49 PM
To be fair, right at this moment the new stat block meets the first two of the three criteria. WotC and Paizo (licensed from WotC) have been the only ones using it, and by that fact it's identifiable to the consumer as "WotC." However, if it's reasonable to expect it to be OGC within the next six months or so, then I'm not sure it would change too many publishers' plans. If it were a year or so away, it might be different.The issue of it being functional is arguably the biggest requirement, though. Recognizability changes over time, depending upon new market penetration, advertising, etc., but it will ALWAYS either be functional or not.
Cathix
01-11-06, 04:09 PM
Official reply from Rich Redman at Wizards:
Two very important things in the email:
1. The new statblock is off-limits per official WotC reply.
2. The SRD will be getting a new update some time in the future, to which I say WOOHOO!
This makes me very happy. (I know, I'm a freak.)
Sean and I don't like the new stat block, but I've been looking over my shoulder to see which other publishers are using it. For now - no need to worry about peer pressure, 'cause we can't use it anyway! *dances about*
pogre
01-11-06, 04:10 PM
I think it is a moot question as Justin suggested, but I must observe I am impressed by the huge numbers of lawyers in the gaming business. A couple of years ago we had a thread discussing the number of lawyers in the business and I think the number just keeps growing. I don't think I knew anybody in law school who was a gamer.
GeoFFields
01-11-06, 04:19 PM
I've seen things here and there about the new stat block; but as I haven't gotten any new gaming material in a year, I have no clue as to what it is. Would someone be kind enough to enlighten me?
Cathix
01-11-06, 04:24 PM
Here's the new stat block for anyone curious:
WoTC's New Stat Block (http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/newstatblock.htm)
GeoFFields
01-11-06, 04:25 PM
Here's the new stat block for anyone curious:
WoTC's New Stat Block (http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/newstatblock.htm)
Thanks, Cathix
DaveMage
01-11-06, 04:33 PM
WotC never put out any OGC modules or anything OGC that uses the old short reference statblocks, only the MM style stat block for monsters.
I think the department you need to contact is WotC legal.
Even Unearthed Arcana?
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 04:34 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure I like that either.
JoeGKushner
01-11-06, 04:46 PM
Even Unearthed Arcana?
Weapons Locker from d20 Modern had some OGC too.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 04:47 PM
Weapons Locker from d20 Modern had some OGC too.IIRC, it had a lot of OGC because much of it was using GR's similar product as a reference/benchmark.
Voadam
01-11-06, 05:00 PM
Even Unearthed Arcana?
Good question, are there any sample old short stat block monsters or NPCs in UA? I don't recall any but I haven't gone over it in exacting detail.
However not many OGC modules or sourcebooks that used old statblocks cited UA and its Section 15 in their section 15. (None to my knowledge).
If WotC short statblock format is something that must be released as OGC to use then neither the old nor the new statblocks can be used and publishers must come up with their own format.
JVisgaitis
01-11-06, 05:03 PM
I disagree (I think). Fonts themselves are proprietary. Whoever owns the Pterra font could license it to whomever, and they would have every right to use that font, imho. (Of course, if the Pterra font is owned by WotC that ends the debate; hence, my "I think.") I think this conclusion has to be true; to conclude otherwise would constitute an unfair restraint of trade. Logos, layout, etc. are trade dress--not the very foundations of written text.
Not really. Fonts are non-copyrightable according to my studies. That's why there are so many duplicate fonts out there that exist of popular common fonts.
Edit: I should certainly read an entire thread before commenting. I'm definitely surprised that the new statblock is "off limits."
Ghostwind
01-11-06, 05:36 PM
I guess the next question, then, is: do we all use the new statblock format regardless of? I think there are good points on both sides, those understanding it to be trade dress and those understading it to be simple format for the organization of words.
Here's a novel idea. Why not create an original stat block that is far more useable and then work to get as many 3rd party publishers on board with it as you can?
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 05:37 PM
I received another email from Rich as a follow up. Rich asked that the contents not be posted to boards, though.
However, I can tell you that those who are interested in receiving a definitive answer to the question of the new statblock should just email Rich at rich.redman[at]wizards[dot]com and get a reply straight from the source.
Knight Otu
01-11-06, 05:54 PM
2. The SRD will be getting a new update some time in the future, to which I say WOOHOO!
Wasn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse?
I hope the update includes the buggy Divine Spells and Domains files.
Even Unearthed Arcana?
No statblocks in UA that I remember.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 06:22 PM
Not really. Fonts are non-copyrightable according to my studies. That's why there are so many duplicate fonts out there that exist of popular common fonts.
Edit: I should certainly read an entire thread before commenting. I'm definitely surprised that the new statblock is "off limits."You can't copyright how fonts look--meaning if you use a font and then convert it to outlines you are okay. You can, however, copyright font FILES, because they are a product of someone's specific work. So, while Babylon 5 couldn't stop people from producing the many fonts that look EXACTLY like the lettering used on the show, they couldn't use the exact same font file the show used in production without getting permission.
philreed
01-11-06, 06:29 PM
Wasn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? I hope the update includes the buggy Divine Spells and Domains files.
I'm certainly surprised to hear that the SRD will be updated.
Here's hoping planar touchstones and magical locations -- just the rules, not the exact samples -- make it in.
Roudi
01-11-06, 06:47 PM
Here's a novel idea. Why not create an original stat block that is far more useable and then work to get as many 3rd party publishers on board with it as you can?
Now that would be the smart idea.
JVisgaitis
01-11-06, 08:17 PM
Here's hoping planar touchstones and magical locations -- just the rules, not the exact samples -- make it in.
I may be mistaken, but haven't you lobbying for this for awhile?
Alzrius
01-11-06, 08:38 PM
I received another email from Rich as a follow up. Rich asked that the contents not be posted to boards, though.
However, I can tell you that those who are interested in receiving a definitive answer to the question of the new statblock should just email Rich at rich.redman[at]wizards[dot]com and get a reply straight from the source.
I'm a little confused by this; I thought a reasonable point of contention was that Rich wasn't part of WotC Legal and thus not the source to get a definitive answer from?
Arnwyn
01-11-06, 08:40 PM
1. The new statblock is off-limits per official WotC reply.
Woo! This is excellent news - I absolutely despise the new statblock.
(Yeah, I'm probably in the minority on this, for some strange reason - no accounting for taste - but this is at least a small victory for me! Woo!)
Roudi
01-11-06, 09:09 PM
Not to add a conspiratorial bent to this, but...
Ask a WotC representative a question such as this, and they will likely give you the answer WotC wants you to hear. I'd recommend that parties interested in using the new stat block consult their own legal counsel, for the sake of impartiality.
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 09:32 PM
I'm a little confused by this; I thought a reasonable point of contention was that Rich wasn't part of WotC Legal and thus not the source to get a definitive answer from?
Again, the reason Rich Redman was the person contacted is because he is the Point of Contact for all issues dealing with the SRD/OGL/d20 License and Wizards. I didn't go to straight to Legal because I have no idea who to contact there, and because I figured that, as the person in charge of SRD/OGL issues, Rich would either know the answer or forward it to Legal himself. As it turns out it was not necessary to involve Legal at this point, as the issue was resolved rather quickly.
Woo! This is excellent news - I absolutely despise the new statblock.
(Yeah, I'm probably in the minority on this, for some strange reason - no accounting for taste - but this is at least a small victory for me! Woo!)
I'm not too keen on the new statblock either, mainly because it is such a space hog, though it does make info easier to find.
Also, please note that, per the second email I received from Rich Redman this morning, the new statblock is NOT off-limits, and can be used by 3rd-party publishers, though it is recommended that those wishing to use it before its inclusion in the SRD (which apparently is coming at some point in the future) email Rich for a complete reply straight from the source.
philreed
01-11-06, 09:56 PM
I may be mistaken, but haven't you lobbying for this for awhile?
Yep. I've also tried e-mailing WotC directly for permission to use the rules but without success.
Roudi
01-11-06, 10:00 PM
I'm personally hoping the "SRD update" Rich alluded to also includes an update to the Modern System Reference Document. There's quite a bit of material there from various sources that I know a few publishers have been chomping at the bit for.
BWP
01-13-06, 12:18 AM
I'm not too keen on the new statblock either, mainly because it is such a space hog
Apparently this is something of an optical illusion. There's a thread on this topic in the Rules forum, and the guys at Paizo say that (despite expectations) the new format is very space-friendly compared to the old stat block.
I think the difference is that the new stat block looks quite open with lots of white space, while the old stat block is very dense and crowded, leading one to think that therefore the old must take up less space ... except that it doesn't (in the majority of cases).
Personally, I haven't used the new stat block to any great extent, so I don't really have an opinion on it; but I hate the old stat block -- I've never once been able to find the info I needed on a first try. I always find myself hunting up and down looking for the numbers I need.
HalWhitewyrm
01-13-06, 12:26 AM
Well, I'll be giving the new statblock a test drive both for practical usefulness and for layout in the near future, so we'll see. Can you link that other thread?
Staffan
01-13-06, 02:07 AM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
There's something really close to it in the Modern SRD, at least.
Bear
Species Traits
Bears have the following traits.
Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, the bear must hit with a claw attack.
Scent (Ex): This ability allows a bear to detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell.
Bear: CR 4; Large animal; HD 6d8+24; hp 51; Mas 19; Init +1; Spd 40 ft.; Defense 15, touch 10, flat-footed 14 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural); BAB +4; Grap +16; Atk +11 melee (1d8+8, claw); Full Atk +11 melee (1d8+8, 2 claws), +6 melee (2d8+4 bite); FS 10 ft. by 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.; SQ improved grab, low-light vision, scent; AL none; SV Fort +9, Ref +6, Will +3; AP 0; Rep +0; Str 27, Dex 13, Con 19, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6.
Skills: Climb +18, Listen +6, Spot +6.
Feats: None.
Advancement: 7–10 HD (Large).
Roudi
01-13-06, 06:11 AM
There are several creature statblocks in the MSRD, but there is no explaination of the format.
Of course, if the old stat block format were suddenly declared trade dress or another form of closed content, a lot of OGL material and NPC generators would be in serious breach.
BWP
01-13-06, 06:23 AM
Well, I'll be giving the new statblock a test drive both for practical usefulness and for layout in the near future, so we'll see. Can you link that other thread?
It's in the General Discussion forum, not the Rules forum:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=163008
jmucchiello
01-13-06, 06:50 AM
I'm not too keen on the new statblock eitherI don't like it either. But like the old stat-block when it comes time to use the new statblock I will move stuff that I think is in the wrong place.
For example, in the old statblock alignment is located between special qualities and ability scores. I moved it to just after CR in my books. No one complained.
In the new statblock, I'd remove Initiative from the senses block and put it in the section with AC on a line above AC. Sharing the line with init would be the creature's speed info. Thus, the second section is combat defenses and movement, the third section becomes just attacks. I realize that init is in the first section because section 1 is the "before combat begins" section. But init just looks out of place there. Putting it with the other combat stats makes more sense to me.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-13-06, 02:44 PM
Apparently this is something of an optical illusion. There's a thread on this topic in the Rules forum, and the guys at Paizo say that (despite expectations) the new format is very space-friendly compared to the old stat block.
I think the difference is that the new stat block looks quite open with lots of white space, while the old stat block is very dense and crowded, leading one to think that therefore the old must take up less space ... except that it doesn't (in the majority of cases).
Personally, I haven't used the new stat block to any great extent, so I don't really have an opinion on it; but I hate the old stat block -- I've never once been able to find the info I needed on a first try. I always find myself hunting up and down looking for the numbers I need.
Speaking as someone who just laid out a 25-page appendix of nothing but stat blocks, I'd have to agree. I don't think it is a space hog--just better organized.
HalWhitewyrm
01-13-06, 07:05 PM
Speaking as someone who just laid out a 25-page appendix of nothing but stat blocks, I'd have to agree. I don't think it is a space hog--just better organized.
That's very good to know, Justin. Thanks.
HugeOgre
01-15-06, 05:27 PM
It seems to me it is in the best interest for everyone to use the same format, because if we all use different formats it makes it much more difficult for DMs to find stuff quickly. I can only hope that WotC adopts that position.
In the last four years I had intuitively learned that HD and hp are close to the top of the old stat block, and that spells are near the bottom. Now, they're changing the order. In time I will no doubt adapt, but I for one don't like the new stat block. What they are attempting makes sense, I like the idea behind the change. Grouping and white space CAN make things much easier to digest. If I thought people wouldn't scream holy hell I'd change my stat blocks today (and not to what WotC did). Unfortunately, I learned the hard way (eating inventory people wouldn't buy because at the time some of my giants were 10x10 and not 5x5) that deviating from WotC, even if it makes more sense, is bad for business.[/sblock]
Since you probably don't want to dig through the whole mess, I think the important post is this:
I can't guarantee it is still current, of course.
[sblock]HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 08:19 PM
I've been seeing the new, extended statblock, featured in Dungeon and the newer Wizards products, popping up in some 3rd-party products here and there (for example, Green Ronin has announced they'll be using the new statblock in their Bleeding Edge line). I've never seen the statblock pop up in any OGC from WotC, though.
Wouldn't using the new statblock be considered infriging on their trade dress, and thus violating the OGL? If not, please explain why. I'm just trying to understand the issue.
Kosala
01-10-06, 08:37 PM
An excellent question. Someone knowledgeable should feel free to explain that since we are thinking of using it in upcoming products.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 08:39 PM
We used the new statblock format in Tell It To My Axe! I confess I didn't even think twice about a trade dress issue, but I'm quite confident it's not a problem. First, I don't think it rises to the level of trade dress; it's less a visually identifying badge and more a method of organizing information. Second, I'd be shocked if WotC didn't want people to use it.
Mouseferatu
01-10-06, 08:50 PM
First, I don't think it rises to the level of trade dress; it's less a visually identifying badge and more a method of organizing information.
That was my impression as well. It's just a means of presenting and organizing text; nothing proprietary about it.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 08:51 PM
To elaborate: To qualify as trade dress, the quality in question must be non-functional. I don't think a stat block format qualifies in the regard.
Man-thing
01-10-06, 09:21 PM
When did it become "okay" to do what WOTC does in one of its "books". I thought all ogl and d20 producers had to work from the SRD and MSRD.
Henry
01-10-06, 09:26 PM
Even beyond the fact that WotC has been making rumblings that they want this block to propagate, you could VERY well use the "phonebook" argument on this. There is precedent for this in prior legal cases, but I'll be darned if I recall the specific cases now.
EDIT - my mistake; the legal cases I was thinking about actually concerned data formats of phone book information on a software program. It's still worth getting an answer from WotC Legal for safety's sake, though.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 09:34 PM
When did it become "okay" to do what WOTC does in one of its "books". I thought all ogl and d20 producers had to work from the SRD and MSRD.
It's always been okay to do "something" that WotC does in one of its books. E.g., just because WotC uses Time New Roman for font doesn't mean its off limits to other publishers. Just because WotC uses a two-column layout.... etc.
The OGL limits content use to what's in the SRD. "Trade dress" is also limited by (IIRC) both the OGL and the d20 License, but that's redundant. Trade dress infringement is problematic by virtue of federal law. The question is whether or not a stat block format is trade dress. I don't think so.
Man-thing
01-10-06, 09:44 PM
Why wouldn't the new stat block format be considered content? Surely the explanation of the stat block format is content?
Eternalknight
01-10-06, 10:23 PM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 10:24 PM
Thanks for the thoughts, I'd welcome more to see if we can figure this out.
So far WotC hasn't raised the issue, so it's not big deal as of yet. I've sent the following email to Rich Redman at WotC asking for an answer to the question.
Hello, Rich. I've a question about the new WotC/Dungeon statblock and its use by 3rd-party publishers.
In short, can we? The new statblock has never been released in any OGC from Wizards, just in Dungeon and some new D&D products. Would the new statblock format be considered "trade dress" and thus be off-limits to those using the OGL/d20 License?
Does Wizards care if 3rd-party publishers start using the new statblock? And if they don't, is it because it's something that is outside the OGL to protect or because they are granting everyone permission to copy the format without the need to check with WotC?
The issue is being discussed at EN World and we all would appreciate an official answer. Thanks.
My gut feeling is that since it is not included in any OGC from WotC it is off-limits to us. I understand that it is merely a way to organize information, but the statblock has a very specific form, shape and flow to itself, down to using bold lines to separate certain groups of information. Another example of the same question would be the city statblock found in the DMG. Leaving aside the specific descriptions they use for describing power bases, etc., the city statblock presents a way to organize information about an urban center. Yet this statblock is closed content and cannot be used, despite the fact that I have seen it pop up here and there in products (to be fair, it was in early products, not something I see a lot anymore).
Given that WotC has rarely intervened with users of the OGL I don't know if its that the statblock as a means to organize information is not something that can be closed, or if that they just haven't noticed or don't feel like pursuing the issue.
just because WotC uses Time New Roman for font doesn't mean its off limits to other publishers.
No, but for example, using the Pterra font, or the adventure icons dingbats, is something I consider off-limits as expressions of their trade dress, so it's very fluid, unfortunately.
My interest in this is not merely curiosity, as it seems more and more publishers are shifting to the new statblock and I need to make a decision for my company.
Man-thing
01-10-06, 10:26 PM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
That's an interesting question. I'm pretty sure there wasn't one in the MSRD until the Modern Arcana material was added. I'm not sure about the fantasy SRD though.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 10:38 PM
No, but for example, using the Pterra font, or the adventure icons dingbats, is something I consider off-limits as expressions of their trade dress, so it's very fluid, unfortunately.
I disagree (I think). Fonts themselves are proprietary. Whoever owns the Pterra font could license it to whomever, and they would have every right to use that font, imho. (Of course, if the Pterra font is owned by WotC that ends the debate; hence, my "I think.") I think this conclusion has to be true; to conclude otherwise would constitute an unfair restraint of trade. Logos, layout, etc. are trade dress--not the very foundations of written text.
HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 10:46 PM
Official reply from Rich Redman at Wizards:
Subject: RE: Question about the new statblock
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:19:30 -0800
From: "Redman, Rich" <Rich.Redman@wizards.com>
To: daniel@highmoonmedia.com
EN World is not the place to discuss the OGL or d20 License. I mean, people are welcome to discuss them anywhere they want, any way they want – that should go without saying. It does mean that it’s not where anyone should expect to find an official answer.
However, you asked me, so I’ll tell you that it is off-limits until the SRD gets updated, and I’ll tell you that Andy Smith (TheAndy™) has accepted an additional work assignment to start another round of adding material to the SRD. I don’t know what all will be included, but I’ll make a point of asking that the current stat block be part of it. It probably already is, but there’s no harm in double-checking.
Rich Redman
Assistant Brand Manager, Licensing
Wizards of the Coast
425-204-7224
Two very important things in the email:
1. The new statblock is off-limits per official WotC reply.
2. The SRD will be getting a new update some time in the future, to which I say WOOHOO!
HalWhitewyrm
01-10-06, 10:48 PM
I disagree (I think). Fonts themselves are proprietary. Whoever owns the Pterra font could license it to whomever, and they would have every right to use that font, imho. (Of course, if the Pterra font is owned by WotC that ends the debate; hence, my "I think.") I think this conclusion has to be true; to conclude otherwise would constitute an unfair restraint of trade. Logos, layout, etc. are trade dress--not the very foundations of written text.
Not disagreeing with you on the ownership of fonts. I guess the issue is whether the choice of a particular font forms part of the trade dress, though that's another topic altogether.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 10:56 PM
I commend them on their quick response.
While I happen to disagree with Rich's assessment (and note that he doesn't offer an explanation as to why), it sounds like it will be moot in short order. And, for the record, had I known that was their position I wouldn't have used it in TITMA. I'm not trying to be territorial about the matter and, of course, never want to piss off the 500-pound gorilla.
I do take exception to Rich's contention that WotC's position on the OGL or d20 License is somehow more valid or more binding than anyone else's. The documents speak for themselves at this point. While Rich is entitled to his viewpoint on such matters it has no more legal relevance than my own.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-10-06, 10:58 PM
Not disagreeing with you on the ownership of fonts. I guess the issue is whether the choice of a particular font forms part of the trade dress, though that's another topic altogether.
That I agree with. Font certainly can be a component of trade dress. No question.
JimAde
01-10-06, 11:07 PM
I shouldn't even have to say IANAL, but...IANAL.
But, come on. Look at the headers of the e-mail
Subject: RE: Question about the new statblock
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:19:30 -0800
From: "Redman, Rich" <Rich.Redman@wizards.com>
To: daniel@highmoonmedia.com
Is Tim Berners-Lee (or whoever arranged e-mail info in that format first) going to sue Microsoft for using it? No. More relevantly, is WotC able to sue me because I create an OGL character sheet that lists the stats in the order STR,DEX,CON,INT,WIS,CHA? No. If the OGL didn't exist they could sue over the fact that the stats are called those names, I suppose, but not the order and arrangement of their presentation.
All the labels/terms/concepts in the statblock are open content, aren't they? If so, I don't see how you can possibly say that putting them in a given order is separate intellectual property. Seems silly to me.
On the other hand, Rich Redman is not WotC's legal department and I suppose it makes sense for him to give the most conservative answer he can, since it's much easier to loosen up later than to take back something more liberal. I certainly appreciate his getting back to you so quickly.
Eternalknight
01-10-06, 11:16 PM
That's an interesting question. I'm pretty sure there wasn't one in the MSRD until the Modern Arcana material was added. I'm not sure about the fantasy SRD though.
I just had a cursory glance at the fantasy SRD and couldn't see the old stat block in there anywhere. It was only a quick glance though, so I may have missed it.
But, if it isn't in there, there are a lot of people in potential trouble!
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 02:39 AM
On the other hand, Rich Redman is not WotC's legal department and I suppose it makes sense for him to give the most conservative answer he can, since it's much easier to loosen up later than to take back something more liberal.
Well, the reason I asked Rich is because he is the new person in charge of OGL issues, since Andy Smith was moved to another department. I actually found it surprising that it would be Andy doing the SRD updates to come, given his move. I understand that Rich is not legal, but I figured he'd be the contact person to go to.
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 02:48 AM
While I happen to disagree with Rich's assessment (and note that he doesn't offer an explanation as to why), it sounds like it will be moot in short order. And, for the record, had I known that was their position I wouldn't have used it in TITMA. I'm not trying to be territorial about the matter and, of course, never want to piss off the 500-pound gorilla.
I honestly don't think anyone really knew about their position on the matter. Frankly, I think it's a really minor thing, but there was something about it that kept bugging me, which is why I brought up the thread here and the email to Rich. I guess for products that are already done a quick email to WotC could take care of things (though, given their track record, I honestly don't know that they would have known or have cared to pursue anything) and hopefully the update to the SRD will take care of things very quickly. I think that it is good for everyone to follow one standard, and for better or for worse, it is up to WotC to set up what that standard is.
Voadam
01-11-06, 03:48 AM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
WotC never put out any OGC modules or anything OGC that uses the old short reference statblocks, only the MM style stat block for monsters.
I think the department you need to contact is WotC legal.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 03:53 AM
Why wouldn't the new stat block format be considered content? Surely the explanation of the stat block format is content?
It's content in the sense that yes, it's contained in the product. "Content" in the legal sense wherein copyright laws would recognize it as something that can be protected? While I've no doubt WotC would win by attrition in any such case, I doubt they'd otherwise ever be able to go the distance on such a thing versus anyone with similar resources. A stat block is a bunch of non-words--short forms--in a format. Just as you can't copyright a 3 x 3 cell table and declare it content, I'd like to see their basis for claiming the format of a stat block as something that's protected.
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 04:07 AM
I guess the next question, then, is: do we all use the new statblock format regardless of? I think there are good points on both sides, those understanding it to be trade dress and those understading it to be simple format for the organization of words.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 04:36 AM
I guess the next question, then, is: do we all use the new statblock format regardless of? I think there are good points on both sides, those understanding it to be trade dress and those understading it to be simple format for the organization of words.Ya know what? I haven't even purchased a WotC product in about 6 months so I haven't even seen it yet
To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (consumers associate it with a single source). It must be instantaneously identifiable to the consumer. It must also be non-functional (and a stat block most certainly is functional.)
Henry
01-11-06, 03:33 PM
To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (consumers associate it with a single source). It must be instantaneously identifiable to the consumer. It must also be non-functional (and a stat block most certainly is functional.)
To be fair, right at this moment the new stat block meets the first two of the three criteria.
WotC and Paizo (licensed from WotC) have been the only ones using it, and by that fact it's identifiable to the consumer as "WotC." However, if it's reasonable to expect it to be OGC within the next six months or so, then I'm not sure it would change too many publishers' plans. If it were a year or so away, it might be different.Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 03:49 PM
To be fair, right at this moment the new stat block meets the first two of the three criteria.
WotC and Paizo (licensed from WotC) have been the only ones using it, and by that fact it's identifiable to the consumer as "WotC." However, if it's reasonable to expect it to be OGC within the next six months or so, then I'm not sure it would change too many publishers' plans. If it were a year or so away, it might be different.The issue of it being functional is arguably the biggest requirement, though. Recognizability changes over time, depending upon new market penetration, advertising, etc., but it will ALWAYS either be functional or not.Cathix
01-11-06, 04:09 PM
Official reply from Rich Redman at Wizards:
Two very important things in the email:
1. The new statblock is off-limits per official WotC reply.
2. The SRD will be getting a new update some time in the future, to which I say WOOHOO!
This makes me very happy. (I know, I'm a freak.)
Sean and I don't like the new stat block, but I've been looking over my shoulder to see which other publishers are using it. For now - no need to worry about peer pressure, 'cause we can't use it anyway! *dances about*
pogre
01-11-06, 04:10 PM
I think it is a moot question as Justin suggested, but I must observe I am impressed by the huge numbers of lawyers in the gaming business. A couple of years ago we had a thread discussing the number of lawyers in the business and I think the number just keeps growing. I don't think I knew anybody in law school who was a gamer.
GeoFFields
01-11-06, 04:19 PM
I've seen things here and there about the new stat block; but as I haven't gotten any new gaming material in a year, I have no clue as to what it is. Would someone be kind enough to enlighten me?
Cathix
01-11-06, 04:24 PM
Here's the new stat block for anyone curious:
WoTC's New Stat Block (http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/newstatblock.htm)
GeoFFields
01-11-06, 04:25 PM
Here's the new stat block for anyone curious:
WoTC's New Stat Block (http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/newstatblock.htm)
Thanks, Cathix
DaveMage
01-11-06, 04:33 PM
WotC never put out any OGC modules or anything OGC that uses the old short reference statblocks, only the MM style stat block for monsters.
I think the department you need to contact is WotC legal.
Even Unearthed Arcana?
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 04:34 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure I like that either.
JoeGKushner
01-11-06, 04:46 PM
Even Unearthed Arcana?
Weapons Locker from d20 Modern had some OGC too.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 04:47 PM
Weapons Locker from d20 Modern had some OGC too.IIRC, it had a lot of OGC because much of it was using GR's similar product as a reference/benchmark.
Voadam
01-11-06, 05:00 PM
Even Unearthed Arcana?
Good question, are there any sample old short stat block monsters or NPCs in UA? I don't recall any but I haven't gone over it in exacting detail.
However not many OGC modules or sourcebooks that used old statblocks cited UA and its Section 15 in their section 15. (None to my knowledge).
If WotC short statblock format is something that must be released as OGC to use then neither the old nor the new statblocks can be used and publishers must come up with their own format.
JVisgaitis
01-11-06, 05:03 PM
I disagree (I think). Fonts themselves are proprietary. Whoever owns the Pterra font could license it to whomever, and they would have every right to use that font, imho. (Of course, if the Pterra font is owned by WotC that ends the debate; hence, my "I think.") I think this conclusion has to be true; to conclude otherwise would constitute an unfair restraint of trade. Logos, layout, etc. are trade dress--not the very foundations of written text.
Not really. Fonts are non-copyrightable according to my studies. That's why there are so many duplicate fonts out there that exist of popular common fonts.
Edit: I should certainly read an entire thread before commenting. I'm definitely surprised that the new statblock is "off limits."
Ghostwind
01-11-06, 05:36 PM
I guess the next question, then, is: do we all use the new statblock format regardless of? I think there are good points on both sides, those understanding it to be trade dress and those understading it to be simple format for the organization of words.
Here's a novel idea. Why not create an original stat block that is far more useable and then work to get as many 3rd party publishers on board with it as you can?
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 05:37 PM
I received another email from Rich as a follow up. Rich asked that the contents not be posted to boards, though.
However, I can tell you that those who are interested in receiving a definitive answer to the question of the new statblock should just email Rich at rich.redman[at]wizards[dot]com and get a reply straight from the source.
Knight Otu
01-11-06, 05:54 PM
2. The SRD will be getting a new update some time in the future, to which I say WOOHOO!
Wasn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse?
I hope the update includes the buggy Divine Spells and Domains files.Even Unearthed Arcana?
No statblocks in UA that I remember.
Steve Conan Trustrum
01-11-06, 06:22 PM
Not really. Fonts are non-copyrightable according to my studies. That's why there are so many duplicate fonts out there that exist of popular common fonts.
Edit: I should certainly read an entire thread before commenting. I'm definitely surprised that the new statblock is "off limits."You can't copyright how fonts look--meaning if you use a font and then convert it to outlines you are okay. You can, however, copyright font FILES, because they are a product of someone's specific work. So, while Babylon 5 couldn't stop people from producing the many fonts that look EXACTLY like the lettering used on the show, they couldn't use the exact same font file the show used in production without getting permission.
philreed
01-11-06, 06:29 PM
Wasn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse?
I hope the update includes the buggy Divine Spells and Domains files.I'm certainly surprised to hear that the SRD will be updated.
Here's hoping planar touchstones and magical locations -- just the rules, not the exact samples -- make it in.
Roudi
01-11-06, 06:47 PM
Here's a novel idea. Why not create an original stat block that is far more useable and then work to get as many 3rd party publishers on board with it as you can?
Now that would be the smart idea.
JVisgaitis
01-11-06, 08:17 PM
Here's hoping planar touchstones and magical locations -- just the rules, not the exact samples -- make it in.
I may be mistaken, but haven't you lobbying for this for awhile?
Alzrius
01-11-06, 08:38 PM
I received another email from Rich as a follow up. Rich asked that the contents not be posted to boards, though.
However, I can tell you that those who are interested in receiving a definitive answer to the question of the new statblock should just email Rich at rich.redman[at]wizards[dot]com and get a reply straight from the source.
I'm a little confused by this; I thought a reasonable point of contention was that Rich wasn't part of WotC Legal and thus not the source to get a definitive answer from?
Arnwyn
01-11-06, 08:40 PM
1. The new statblock is off-limits per official WotC reply.
Woo! This is excellent news - I absolutely despise the new statblock.
(Yeah, I'm probably in the minority on this, for some strange reason - no accounting for taste - but this is at least a small victory for me! Woo!)
Roudi
01-11-06, 09:09 PM
Not to add a conspiratorial bent to this, but...
Ask a WotC representative a question such as this, and they will likely give you the answer WotC wants you to hear. I'd recommend that parties interested in using the new stat block consult their own legal counsel, for the sake of impartiality.
HalWhitewyrm
01-11-06, 09:32 PM
I'm a little confused by this; I thought a reasonable point of contention was that Rich wasn't part of WotC Legal and thus not the source to get a definitive answer from?
Again, the reason Rich Redman was the person contacted is because he is the Point of Contact for all issues dealing with the SRD/OGL/d20 License and Wizards. I didn't go to straight to Legal because I have no idea who to contact there, and because I figured that, as the person in charge of SRD/OGL issues, Rich would either know the answer or forward it to Legal himself. As it turns out it was not necessary to involve Legal at this point, as the issue was resolved rather quickly.
Woo! This is excellent news - I absolutely despise the new statblock.
(Yeah, I'm probably in the minority on this, for some strange reason - no accounting for taste - but this is at least a small victory for me! Woo!)
I'm not too keen on the new statblock either, mainly because it is such a space hog, though it does make info easier to find.
Also, please note that, per the second email I received from Rich Redman this morning, the new statblock is NOT off-limits, and can be used by 3rd-party publishers, though it is recommended that those wishing to use it before its inclusion in the SRD (which apparently is coming at some point in the future) email Rich for a complete reply straight from the source.
philreed
01-11-06, 09:56 PM
I may be mistaken, but haven't you lobbying for this for awhile?
Yep. I've also tried e-mailing WotC directly for permission to use the rules but without success.
Roudi
01-11-06, 10:00 PM
I'm personally hoping the "SRD update" Rich alluded to also includes an update to the Modern System Reference Document. There's quite a bit of material there from various sources that I know a few publishers have been chomping at the bit for.
BWP
01-13-06, 12:18 AM
I'm not too keen on the new statblock either, mainly because it is such a space hog
Apparently this is something of an optical illusion. There's a thread on this topic in the Rules forum, and the guys at Paizo say that (despite expectations) the new format is very space-friendly compared to the old stat block.
I think the difference is that the new stat block looks quite open with lots of white space, while the old stat block is very dense and crowded, leading one to think that therefore the old must take up less space ... except that it doesn't (in the majority of cases).
Personally, I haven't used the new stat block to any great extent, so I don't really have an opinion on it; but I hate the old stat block -- I've never once been able to find the info I needed on a first try. I always find myself hunting up and down looking for the numbers I need.
HalWhitewyrm
01-13-06, 12:26 AM
Well, I'll be giving the new statblock a test drive both for practical usefulness and for layout in the near future, so we'll see. Can you link that other thread?
Staffan
01-13-06, 02:07 AM
Was the old statblock format ever in the SRD?
There's something really close to it in the Modern SRD, at least.
Bear
Species Traits
Bears have the following traits.
Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, the bear must hit with a claw attack.
Scent (Ex): This ability allows a bear to detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell.
Bear: CR 4; Large animal; HD 6d8+24; hp 51; Mas 19; Init +1; Spd 40 ft.; Defense 15, touch 10, flat-footed 14 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural); BAB +4; Grap +16; Atk +11 melee (1d8+8, claw); Full Atk +11 melee (1d8+8, 2 claws), +6 melee (2d8+4 bite); FS 10 ft. by 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.; SQ improved grab, low-light vision, scent; AL none; SV Fort +9, Ref +6, Will +3; AP 0; Rep +0; Str 27, Dex 13, Con 19, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6.
Skills: Climb +18, Listen +6, Spot +6.
Feats: None.
Advancement: 7–10 HD (Large).
Roudi
01-13-06, 06:11 AM
There are several creature statblocks in the MSRD, but there is no explaination of the format.
Of course, if the old stat block format were suddenly declared trade dress or another form of closed content, a lot of OGL material and NPC generators would be in serious breach.
BWP
01-13-06, 06:23 AM
Well, I'll be giving the new statblock a test drive both for practical usefulness and for layout in the near future, so we'll see. Can you link that other thread?
It's in the General Discussion forum, not the Rules forum:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=163008
jmucchiello
01-13-06, 06:50 AM
I'm not too keen on the new statblock eitherI don't like it either. But like the old stat-block when it comes time to use the new statblock I will move stuff that I think is in the wrong place.
For example, in the old statblock alignment is located between special qualities and ability scores. I moved it to just after CR in my books. No one complained.
In the new statblock, I'd remove Initiative from the senses block and put it in the section with AC on a line above AC. Sharing the line with init would be the creature's speed info. Thus, the second section is combat defenses and movement, the third section becomes just attacks. I realize that init is in the first section because section 1 is the "before combat begins" section. But init just looks out of place there. Putting it with the other combat stats makes more sense to me.
Justin D. Jacobson
01-13-06, 02:44 PM
Apparently this is something of an optical illusion. There's a thread on this topic in the Rules forum, and the guys at Paizo say that (despite expectations) the new format is very space-friendly compared to the old stat block.
I think the difference is that the new stat block looks quite open with lots of white space, while the old stat block is very dense and crowded, leading one to think that therefore the old must take up less space ... except that it doesn't (in the majority of cases).
Personally, I haven't used the new stat block to any great extent, so I don't really have an opinion on it; but I hate the old stat block -- I've never once been able to find the info I needed on a first try. I always find myself hunting up and down looking for the numbers I need.
Speaking as someone who just laid out a 25-page appendix of nothing but stat blocks, I'd have to agree. I don't think it is a space hog--just better organized.
HalWhitewyrm
01-13-06, 07:05 PM
Speaking as someone who just laid out a 25-page appendix of nothing but stat blocks, I'd have to agree. I don't think it is a space hog--just better organized.
That's very good to know, Justin. Thanks.
HugeOgre
01-15-06, 05:27 PM
It seems to me it is in the best interest for everyone to use the same format, because if we all use different formats it makes it much more difficult for DMs to find stuff quickly. I can only hope that WotC adopts that position.
In the last four years I had intuitively learned that HD and hp are close to the top of the old stat block, and that spells are near the bottom. Now, they're changing the order. In time I will no doubt adapt, but I for one don't like the new stat block. What they are attempting makes sense, I like the idea behind the change. Grouping and white space CAN make things much easier to digest. If I thought people wouldn't scream holy hell I'd change my stat blocks today (and not to what WotC did). Unfortunately, I learned the hard way (eating inventory people wouldn't buy because at the time some of my giants were 10x10 and not 5x5) that deviating from WotC, even if it makes more sense, is bad for business.[/sblock]
Since you probably don't want to dig through the whole mess, I think the important post is this:
I can't guarantee it is still current, of course.
carpedavid
First Post
Alzrius said:I'm almost positive that thread is lost.
There was some general idea that WotC needed to be emailed about this, but I'm not certain that's iron-clad. Amalara, for instance, used the new stat block format in their product Dungeon Dive 7: Spawning Pits of the Tomb Bats, and I can't find any notations in the text about having to get permission from WotC to do so.
Jeffrey, if you want an "official" answer, email Rich Redman: Rich.Redman[AT]wizards[DOT]com. I did, and he was very quick and courteous with his answer.
Unless something really strange has happened since I emailed him, you can derive from the above what the answer is likely to be.
Roudi
First Post
I'd just like to point out that whether or not one can "protect" a presentation style such as a stat block format from free use is a matter of legal speculation. Consulting WotC will certainly yield the answer they want you to hear, but you would get a less biased answer from your own legal counsel.
As it is, I can think of at least one publisher who has consulted his legal counsel about the matter and determined he was within his rights to use the new stat block format without requiring special permission from WotC.
As it is, I can think of at least one publisher who has consulted his legal counsel about the matter and determined he was within his rights to use the new stat block format without requiring special permission from WotC.
JVisgaitis
Explorer
Thanks guys!
I figured that would be the case.
Roudi said:
I figured that would be the case.
Similar Threads
Enchanted Trinkets Complete
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
December 9 2025 -
June 18 2026 -
October 1 2026
