D&D 5E Radically shrinking stat blocks

[Quickleaf]

EDIT: For a meatier example, I started tackling the Ancient Green Dragon on page 5 of this thread.

On the left is the 2024 5e skeleton, marked up with my notes, and on the right is the stat block as I've rewritten it, reducing the size by at least one-third...and hopefully making it easier to read.

I've reduced the stats to just one number (instead of three). This number is effectively their saving throw bonuses, but it pulls double duty as ability scores, and as initiative. For example, a monster with Dexterity saving throw proficiency would - in this writeup - also get a Dexterity bonus equal to that (e.g. for the purposes of escaping a grapple) and a boosted initiative roll. I could probably go further and omit "initiative" entirely from the rewritten stats

I know that there's always short-hand versions of monster stats – whether in-line annotation like you'd see in an AD&D module or personalized GM notes on a monster – but I wanted to explore how actual stats could be shrunken down. I've come to believe that the weightiness of monster stats contributes to draining my energy as a GM trying to keep track of everything. This is just a simple example. The real work comes in cutting down the wordiness of 5e monsters where the language just bogs down parsing what's intended.

Anyhow, I'm curious about your thoughts. What are you doing to pare down monster stat blocks? Is stat block bloat a problem for you or do you embrace it? Are there certain ways you've seen stat blocks handled that you felt were easier to parse?

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Combining attacks into one line is usually not going to work. It works there because they do the same damage but that usually isn't the case.

Anyways I give it an A+ based solely on putting CR in huge font at the top.

 

[sevenbastard]

I use a reduced Stat block as well that I build in excell then I can copy and paste into publisher so I can fit dozens of monster on one page in two columns to keep them handy and not have to flip around the monster books.

This is my Skelton and Stirge as they were right next to each other.

I could probably lose the Stat number and just go with the + or - but I'm partial to keeping them. I do saves with a slash, see below.

For casters I also add the spells in short hand. I also can just mark off the spell slots on my paper.

Please note I home brew clerics with more 1st level spell slots but they can't cast cantrip without using a spell slot (no laser clerics and no constant Guidance). That's why cantrip are not listed and the spell slots are high.

 

[Charlaquin]

View attachment 378251

On the left is the 2024 5e skeleton, marked up with my notes, and on the right is the stat block as I've rewritten it, reducing the size by at least one-third...and hopefully making it easier to read.

I like moving CR to the upper right corner, and deleting the gear line. The rest... ehh...

I've reduced the stats to just one number (instead of three). This number is effectively their saving throw bonuses, but it pulls double duty as ability scores, and as initiative. For example, a monster with Dexterity saving throw proficiency would - in this writeup - also get a Dexterity bonus equal to that (e.g. for the purposes of escaping a grapple) and a boosted initiative roll. I could probably go further and omit "initiative" entirely from the rewritten stats

But it takes up the same amount of space on the page, and it doesn't allow cases of monsters that add their proficiency bonus to a save without also adding it to checks with the ability. Net negative in my opinion. Combining the two attacks also only works in this specific instance where the monster has two attacks that do the same damage at different ranges and have no additional effects. That's not going to be the case for most monsters. Like, I guess it doesn't hurt in this case, but I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

[Quickleaf]

I like moving CR to the upper right corner, and deleting the gear line. The rest... ehh...

But it takes up the same amount of space on the page, and it doesn't allow cases of monsters that add their proficiency bonus to a save without also adding it to checks with the ability. Net negative in my opinion. Combining the two attacks also only works in this specific instance where the monster has two attacks that do the same damage at different ranges and have no additional effects. That's not going to be the case for most monsters. Like, I guess it doesn't hurt in this case, but I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

I wanted to focus on what you're saying about differentiating proficient saves from ability scores (in regards to monsters). I'm trying to think of actual examples where using saves-as-ability-mods would lead to glaring discrepancy between the monster's mechanics and our story expectations of it.

For examples, if we take a cambion... Str 18 (+4), Dex 18 (+4), Con 16 (+3), Int 14 (+2), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 16 (+3)... it has these saves STR +7, CON +6, INT +5, CHA +6. It already has these skills... Deception +6, Intimidation +6, Perception +4, Stealth +7... so the only change in terms of practical implication here (i.e. in terms of checks GMs actually make for monsters) would be the cambion with saves-as-ability-mods would effectively have Athletics proficiency for resisting grapples. That seems pretty appropriate.

Another example, if we look at a beholder... Str 10, Dex 14 (+2), Con 18 (+4), Int 17 (+3), Wis 15 (+2), Cha 17 (+3)... it has the following saves... INT +8, WIS +7, CHA +8... and its only skill proficiency/expertise is Perception +12. So using saves-as-ability-mods for a beholder effectively gives it Insight and Deception proficiency. I guess that will depend on the way the GM is using the beholder, as a thieves' guildmaster like Xanathar, those would make sense.

I guess I'm just not finding an example that really convinces me the differentiation is all that worthwhile for monsters.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Love it. One suggestion: I'd use:

Shortsword/Shortbow. 5ft Melee or 80/320ft Ranged: Attack: (+5) for 1d6+3 piercing damage.

So you can ditch the bit about reach and range. I can't imagine how the above wouldn't be perfectly clear while saving space

 

[GMMichael]

How about:

Skeleton +1, HP 13, AC 13
Dark vision, shortsword/shortbow 1d10

 

[Horwath]

nice page saver idea for MM

only one problem,

Shortsword/shortbow needs to be replaced with rapier/heavy crossbow
Optimize people. Optimize!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How about:

Skeleton +1, HP 13, AC 13
Dark vision, shortsword/shortbow 1d10

This is, of course, how it was in 1st edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wanted to focus on what you're saying about differentiating proficient saves from ability scores (in regards to monsters). I'm trying to think of actual examples where using saves-as-ability-mods would lead to glaring discrepancy between the monster's mechanics and our story expectations of it.

For examples, if we take a cambion... Str 18 (+4), Dex 18 (+4), Con 16 (+3), Int 14 (+2), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 16 (+3)... it has these saves STR +7, CON +6, INT +5, CHA +6. It already has these skills... Deception +6, Intimidation +6, Perception +4, Stealth +7... so the only change in terms of practical implication here (i.e. in terms of checks GMs actually make for monsters) would be the cambion with saves-as-ability-mods would effectively have Athletics proficiency for resisting grapples.

Huh? No, it would have proficiency with all Strength checks, be they Athletics or any other kind of Strength check.

Another example, if we look at a beholder... Str 10, Dex 14 (+2), Con 18 (+4), Int 17 (+3), Wis 15 (+2), Cha 17 (+3)... it has the following saves... INT +8, WIS +7, CHA +8... and its only skill proficiency/expertise is Perception +12. So using saves-as-ability-mods for a beholder effectively gives it Insight and Deception proficiency.

I don’t understand how you’re arriving at this conclusion. Saves as ability mods would functionally be giving the beholder +5 to every single check it makes with Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, save Perception checks (which it already gets +10 on anyway). Thats a huge buff!

I guess I'm just not finding an example that really convinces me the differentiation is all that worthwhile for monsters.

Like… any time you want the monster to make an ability check and not be proficient with it… I don’t know how to explain this further, it’s entirely self-evident to me. Especially since your layout doesn’t actually save any physical (or digital) page space by getting rid of the distinction. Maybe if it significantly shrunk the stat block it would be worth considering if the consolidation is worth the loss in ability check granularity, but both versions have the same space dedicated to showing those stats.