Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 5628574" data-attributes="member: 3586">Once upon a time, the D&D statblock was a tiny thing. In Against the Giants, only the hit points were given. Admittedly, this was a bit short, but by the time of Pharaoh, a typical monster statblock looked like this:Two Wraiths (AC 3, MV 12"/24"; HD 5+3; hp 20, 16; #AT 1; Dmg 1-6 and drain one level; AL LE; can only be hit by silver (1/2 damage) or magical (full damage) weapons.It's short, and it doesn't impede the adventure flow. Thus, there is room for description of areas and other things that help the adventure. The most bloated statblock I've ever encountered is that of Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms (3.5e), which was printed over 3 pages. Talk about overkill. At least you're very unlikely to get statblocks that long in 4e, but even so, they're very space-hungry. Once half the page is taken up by monster descriptions, the flow of the adventure is broken. (And once the combat takes an hour plus to resolve, then the flow gets broken in real time as well).How did AD&D manage it? Well, less well as the years went on (for which, read 2E). However, there were a few interesting features of the D&D statblock:* The statblock concentrates on the most common part of D&D combat: weapon combat. Thus, AC, #AT and Damage. The attack bonus is contained within the Hit Dice number - and the lookup tables on the DM screen.* Spell vs Monster resolution is again handled by a look-up table on the DM screen. (In some ways, Basic D&D got this better by adding a SV: line to show how it saves). In 3E & 4E, you break this out into three actual defenses, but are they really necessary? Do they truly add to the game experience?* Monster special abilities are (relatively) rare, but there are standard ones described briefly. Except...* Spell look-up allows more complicated creatures. IMO, this works well when there is a very small pool of spells (original AD&D), but much, much less well when there are a very large pool of spells (3e). In my experiences running AD&D, it was very easy to know what the common spells were - it only became a pain when looking up uncommon spells.Against that, you have the tactical options available from the longer statblock. D&D combats which only provide one option (hit with my sword) may run quicker, but if they're all like that, it's a little shallow. I wonder in many cases if the special ability could be phrased better and shorter than the current lossy format.Consider this possible 4E Zombie, adapted from the latest Monster Vault:Grasping Zombie, RL Brute 1, HP 33/16, AC 13, MV 4; #AT 1, Dmg 1d8+3 and grab; SA +5 damage against grabbed target; immune disease, poison; dies immediately when criticalled; AL N.There is a certain assumption here that tables on the DM screen give a standard attack bonus, defenses, initiative and skills for a Brute 1. Honestly, the lack of written defences (F,R,W) works badly within the 4e framework, but it's only a couple of lines in the adventure.More complicated monsters hurt a lot more. What do you choose to lose?Efreeti Cinderlord. RL Art 23; HP 169/84, AC 37, Spd 6, fly 8, AT +28, Dmg 2d10+7 plus ongoing 5 fire (sv); SA immune fire, at will-fire bolt (8 sq, vs Ref, 3d10+10 fire plus ongoing 10 fire (sv)), efreeti's curse (20 sq, vs Ref; a creature taking ongoing damage and all adjacent take 2d6+7 fire), AL E, Bluff +22, Insight +20.Does that work for you? Do you need more? Where lies the point between "too simple" and "too complicated", and where does it stand in relation to "readable adventures" and "unreadable adventures"?They play off against each other, and I am curious to see what occurs as D&D moves into the future.Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification