The Devil's in the Details: Slavicsek reveals the Pit Fiend in all its glory

[Rechan]

Couldn't you do that anyway? I mean, if that out-of-combat stuff was there, couldn't you just ignore it and make it up yourself?

Then the stuff in the statblock is in the way.

Three lines is much easier to navigate than twelve, etc.

 

[rkanodia]

So you're PCs never ever talk to anything?

Straw Man argument, and the Pit Fiend has a 'Languages' block anyway. Looks like you can Fail twice as a standard action.

 

[Lord Zack]

That wouldn't be what he said at all, and clearly a deliberate misreading on your part.

As a DM I only need a stat block to serve one purpose: run the monster in a fight against PCs.

I don't know, how else do you interpret that?

 

[frankthedm]

Its like 1e days where Drow weapons disintegrated so that the PCs could never get them. Its an unfun mechanic that exists to screw players over and should be removed from the game.

It exists so the Drow can provide the challenge they need to and to give a solid reason why the drow stay where they are at.

 

[Bishmon]

Then the stuff in the statblock is in the way.

Three lines is much easier to navigate than twelve, etc.

Then seperate it.

Seriously, have the barebones combat statblock. And then have a smaller block of recommended out-of-combat abilities. DMs that like to make that stuff up can just ignore the smaller block (especially if it's merely 'recommended'), and DMs that don't like to make that stuff at least have something to go on. And none of it gets in the way of the combat statblock.

 

[Dragonblade]

Couldn't you do that anyway? I mean, if that out-of-combat stuff was there, couldn't you just ignore it and make it up yourself?

What I'm saying is, if you're a DM who likes to make that stuff up, I don't really see how examples of that stuff being in the stat block will hinder you. But if you're a DM who doesn't like to make that stuff up, or isn't familiar enough with the monster to do so, I can absolutely see how that stuff not being in the stat block would hurt you.

Sure fair enough. Then if they did have a social section, I would prefer it segregated from their combat abilities so I don't have to read through umpteen million spell-like abilities and try to decide if that is something the monster would do in combat, or if its just there for flavor.

Of course, I can deconstruct a complex stat block at my leisure, but I miss the days when I can crack open the MM and just run a monster on the fly without having to stop the game while I look up a bunch of different abilities. As long as they maintain that ease of play then I'm not opposed to adding a social section to a stat block.

 

[Dragonblade]

So you're PCs never ever talk to anything?

Sure they do. But I don't need "social" stats for that. As a DM, I can make all that stuff up as needed. Thats easy.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I don't know, how else do you interpret that?

By reading the sentence that comes next?

Everything else the monster does I can just make up.

I mean, you're really just being disingenuous here. It's not honest. You should stop.

EDIT: I should mention that a divided stat block is a perfectly acceptable compromise, as above.

 

[Rechan]

I don't know, how else do you interpret that?

That the stat block is only for combat?

He didn't say "I only need monsters for one thing: combat". He said stat block. Where the stats of the monster live.

 

[Lord Zack]

Sure they do. But I don't need "social" stats for that. As a DM, I can make all that stuff up as needed. Thats easy.

So why can't you do that for combat? It seems a bit silly that they're putting in a system for resolving social encounters and yet apparently not considering that monsters might participate in those social encounters.