WotC Considering NPC Stat Format Change

This started with a comment about D&D formatting errors by James Introcaso (the comment, not the errors) on Twitter, and WotC's Chris Perkins joined in. Other quickly chimed in with further questions.

James: When you write an NPC's statistics in parentheses next to their name, it should look like this: NAME (ABBREVIATED ALIGNMENT SEX OR GENDER SUBRACE RACE STATISTICS). e.g. Fireface McDragon (LG female mountain dwarf knight)

Perkins: We’re thinking about dispensing with that format and writing out the information in sentence form using no alignment abbreviations. Example: Borf is a chaotic neutral, non-binary shield dwarf berserker with darkvision out to a range of 60 feet.

Crows Bring the Spring: Can I inquire why adding the blurb about dark vision is included in that line? Makes it feel rather lengthy.

Perkins: It doesn’t have to be there. It could also be replaced with something else, such as the languages Borf speaks, if that’s more important. Racial traits and other useful info could be presented as separate, full sentences.

Hannah Rose: What’s motivating this possible change? The ability to transition into modifications to a stat block without saying “with the following changes”?

Perkins: Our intention is to make books that are gorgeous, thoughtfully organized, fun to read, and easy for DMs/players of all experience levels to use.

Guillermo Garrido: Do you playtest these changes by different levels of players/DMs before widespread use of the new language?

Perkins: We playtest everything.

 

[Koloth]

Non-binary as opposed to M or F.
Google.

Real life terminology doesn't always equate to the same meaning in RPG terminology. This could be a case study for not adopting a plain text descriptor for critters. Without data descriptors folks could be left guessing what something means. My first thought was the dwarf had some Otyugh heritage and had three arms.

 

[CapnZapp]

How about they indicate what spells require Concentration?

 

[jgsugden]

I prefer shorthand over a sentence. I want condensed crunch that I can bring to the table in the smallest package possible.

The fluff and poetry of language is welcome, but not as part of the monster block or any crunch representation of the character. Whe providing mechanics, make them as succinct as possible. Heck, most of the monster ability descriptions in the DMG could be shortened substantially.

 

[robus]

Hmm weird. The thing I think is missing is a short textual physical description of the character. For example:

Fireface McDragon (LG female mountain dwarf knight)
Wearing battleworn armor and has a large scar across her face.

Sometimes there's a picture to base it off, sometimes not. But inevitably I have to describe the NPC and having a description ready to go really helps.

I've also started adding short text descriptions to my monster stat blocks to remind myself of their key features.

 

[ccs]

Ugh. I really hope they don't implement this idea.
They need to keep in mind that the purpose of these stat blocks is not to make the game gorgeous or fun to read or whatever, but to make the game playable.
Burying the info in natural language sentences makes that harder.

 

[Prakriti]

I think they can achieve the best of both worlds just by spelling out the alignment. Nothing else needs to change.

 

[Eric V]

Ugh. I really hope they don't implement this idea.
They need to keep in mind that the purpose of these stat blocks is not to make the game gorgeous or fun to read or whatever, but to make the game playable.
Burying the info in natural language sentences makes that harder.

Well, anything they do is to sell more books, right? It's actually not about ease of play, or whatever; it's about whatever moves books off the shelves. If [MENTION=6938027]Merudo[/MENTION] is right that most of these adventures are bought and read but not played, then they probably should move to a more natural language statblock if that is more popular.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Man, for a second there I thought the article meant that they were going to redesign the whole Stat-Block, and I was excited. The current one is fine, and I don't know what a new one would look like, but I imagined something revolutionary for a moment there.

 

[Satyrn]

Is it weird that I was just thinking about how I missed the short stat blocks of 1e?

"4 Bull Thistles (AC 6; MV 9”; HD 4; hp 4 x 24; #AT 3; D 2-8/2-8/3-13; SD 25% magic resistance)"


(Source: EX1)

Okay, Joe, the Bull Thistle hits you with an, uh, thistled arm for 2d4 damage. And it hits you again, with another thistled arm for, lets mix this up, 3d3-1. Then it chomps you with its thistled maw, dealing, um . . . 1d10+2 . . . no, I mean 1d12 + 1 . . . wait 1d4+1d6+1d3. Yeah, that's got it.

 

[TheBanjoNerd]

[MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] I don't think anyone is saying we need to go back to the arcane way that attack damage was written. I've been DM'ing 5e since it was released and I use essentially the same stat block [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] presented because it gets all of the relevant information across quickly and concisely. I don't need to know what an NPC's bonds and flaws are when it comes to combat.