D&D 5E Radically shrinking stat blocks

[Zaukrie]

Big fan of ridding most stat blocks of most of the stuff there. It's a total waste of space. Nimble 5e is doing this. There are videos about this online.... I'm all in

 

[Rabulias]

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

Usually true, but there will be cases where creatures have Reach, so it's good to call that out. Also, there will be targets at the edge of a range increment, and I have to stop and think "Do they get Disadvantage on this attack?" I am too old (and/or played too many editions) to remember every range increments for every weapon.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah, I see, so this could be a GM style difference.

For the cambion – IME Strength checks are very rare for me to roll for monsters. The most common will be resisting a grapple, and then... maybe there's one or two spells that involve Strength checks as opposed to Strength saves. Maybe you're encountered situations that I have not?

For the beholder – again IME how often is a monster making these ability checks? Intelligence checks? Pff, almost never roll those for monsters; the Arcana/History skills having numerical values for monsters is meaningless for me, as all I do is use the skill list as a cue for how to portray the monster. Wisdom checks that I my monsters make tend to be Insight & Perception, while Charisma checks that my monsters make tend to be Deception checks.

For ex, it's exceedingly rare for a GM to roll Charisma for a monster as a way to persuade or intimidate PCs – normal practice is for the GM to just portray the monster in a manner which suggests "persuasive" or "intimidating", and let players make up their minds. Similarly, I never see my monsters use Wisdom (Animal Handling, Medicine, or Survival) checks.

I absolutely see the value in differentiating ability mods/saves/skills for a player character. But I haven't been in a 5e game where a great diversity of monster ability/skill checks were common – instead they tend to be clustered around STR (Athletics to oppose grapple), DEX (Acrobatics to oppose grapple), DEX (Stealth), WIS (Insight or Perception), CHA (Deception).

Ok, I see what you’re saying now. If you only have monsters make ability checks as needed for resolving the effects of spells, grapples, or other actions that explicitly require such checks, then the difference is probably pretty minor (though I would still argue nonzero, and therefore worth maintaining unless the change actually shrunk the stat block). I rely on ability checks pretty heavily for resolving nonstandard/improvised actions.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Usually true, but there will be cases where creatures have Reach, so it's good to call that out.

But... I put the range in, I just moved it and shrank it. If they have reach, you'd put:

Giant Maul or Thrown Rock. 10ft melee or 60/180ft ranged attack: (+7) for 3d8+7 bludgeoning damage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

When I did Bugbears and Borderlands a few years ago, I just got rid of ability scores and used modifiers

And with Twilight Fables, I put CR and Prof bonus at the top of the entry

When I saw the 2024 stat block (with saves being integrated into ability scores) I still wanted it cleaner. So the 2024 version I like to work with looks more like this

 

[Rabulias]

But... I put the range in, I just moved it and shrank it. If they have reach, you'd put:

Ah! I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought the statblock section you provided was a block you were critiquing, and not your own example.

 

[el-remmen]

I never include weapon reach info unless it is actually more than 5’, which is rare.

But I am rare in that I actually like a bigger stat block. Find it clearer and leaves lots of room for notes while including enough that I rarely have to stop to look something up (even if I tend to not need it). But I understand the desire for it to take up less space.

 

[Quickleaf]

I never include weapon reach info unless it is actually more than 5’, which is rare.

But I am rare in that I actually like a bigger stat block. Find it clearer and leaves lots of room for notes while including enough that I rarely have to stop to look something up (even if I tend to not need it). But I understand the desire for it to take up less space.

Do you use printed monster stats and physically take notes on them?

 

[Argyle King]

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'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?

I like it.

I have my fair share of 4E criticisms, but one thing that the edition did well was present crunch in a clear and concise manner.

With what you've done, you could fit most creatures on an index card.

 

[Quickleaf]

I like it.

I have my fair share of 4E criticisms, but one thing that the edition did well was present crunch in a clear and concise manner.

With what you've done, you could fit most creatures on an index card.

4e also was when D&D implemented an icon language to communicate certain things – typically areas of effect like bursts/blasts and recharge dice.

I've wondered about "order of information" in the 5e / modern D&D stat blocks. For example, one of the first questions a GM asks when there's a monster encounter: "Does the monster notice the PCs? Do the PCs notice the monster?" If the GM's eyes scan from top-to-bottom (I know actual information search involves the eyes darting around somewhat, but I think that occurs in the umbrella of reading top-to-bottom), they've got to get through the monster's type, AC, HP, Speed, Stats, Resistances/Immunities, and Skills before reaching the Senses line. EDIT: When I do my own short-form monster stat notes, I tend to include senses & stealth skills (if any) right up front.

For example, I think this is why @sevenbastard 's example has a black box in the upper right with DV for darkvision, so the GM doesn't overlook it.

I wonder if the 4e "icon language" approach might be applied to certain aspects of monsters that are less combat centric, things like Darkvision, Tremorsense, Blindsight, or even movement modes like climb, swim, fly.