# DUNGEON's NEW STAT BLOCK FORMAT



## Emirikol (May 29, 2005)

Anybody notice the beautiful new stat block format that Erik put into DUNGEON #124?

It's beautiful.  DM's have been crying for a statblock that can be read and makes sense for a long time and DUNGEON is putting it into play.  Heck it will probably be what 4th edition looks like 


KULLEN                       CR3
Half-orc barbarian 3
NE Medium humanoid (orc)
Init: +1  Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Spot-1, Listen +5
Languages Common, Orc
-------------------------------------------------------
AC 11, touch 11, flat-footed 10; uncanny dodge
hp 31 (3HD)
Fort +5; Ref +2, Will +0 

etc.


----------



## scourger (May 29, 2005)

That does look nice.  I'll look forward to getting it.


----------



## Berandor (May 29, 2005)

Nice! I'll think about updating my villain sheets.


----------



## BryonD (May 29, 2005)

I agree.
I had a brief moment of "What now?", which was VERY quickly followed by "Oh, this cool thing now."

It seems really well presented.


----------



## nocanes (May 29, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Anybody notice the beautiful new stat block format that Erik put into DUNGEON #124?
> [/FONT]




All I know is that it's going into my homebrew D20 Future tonight. I think this is a combat-friendlier statblock that I need for flow anyway...


----------



## EricNoah (May 29, 2005)

It's pretty cool; I like the combat options section particularly.  

If they could color-code the "buffed" stats in there somehow (to match different buffing options -- green potion of bull's strength leads to green parenthetical stats for attacks; red "rage" info; etc.) that would be nifty.  

Also, in the mag it would help me if the stat block section were on a slightly different color background, like a sidebar but without the border.  And they could alternate colors if they're presenting 2 or 3 or more stat blocks in a row so it's easy to see where one stat block ends and another begins.  

And finally, in the mag, I noticed that when they lined up a stat block and then immediately referenced a MM monster, the MM monster reference kind of gets lost -- again, either a little symbol to say "look this one up" or colored backgrounds or something might help keep that from happening.  

Overall, a nice improvement.


----------



## Ketjak (May 29, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Anybody notice the beautiful new stat block format that Erik put into DUNGEON #124?
> 
> It's beautiful.  DM's have been crying for a statblock that can be read and makes sense for a long time and DUNGEON is putting it into play.




It comes at the cost of column-inches, though. In other words, less stuff for a friendlier stat block. Personally I think they ARE beautiful and they DO make it easier to reference for combat statistics. However, I could read the old ones.


----------



## Garnfellow (May 29, 2005)

Here's another vote in favor of the new statblock format.

I understand that the Dungeon team didn't actually develop this -- WotC built this format for the DMG II (see the Stampede of Horses statblock in the DMGII preview).


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 29, 2005)

Looks good, easy to understand, with no weird flow problems.

It eats up a little exta space, but uses it well.

The Auld Grump


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 29, 2005)

Definitely easier to read, but at the expense of page space.  The old statblocks didn't bother me (I actually kinda like them).  I'll have to try and test this format though; if it makes my game faster, it stays.


----------



## Mystery Man (May 29, 2005)

I don't like it.


----------



## bbarrington (May 29, 2005)

I do like it.


----------



## Branding Opportunity (May 29, 2005)

I like the fact that higher-level spells are listed first.  In DM terms, that makes a lot of sense.  Also like section where AC, hp, DR, SR, Immunities and Saves are all grouped together; everything that deals with how much punishment a critter can take.  I can't tell you the number of times I've forgotten one or the other in the heat of battle.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 29, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Heck it will probably be what 4th edition looks like



The DMGII introduces this new stat block, we'll probably be seeing this in WotC's new adventure path, as well as all new accessories. The Dungeon #124 thread, in this post , James Jacobs explains that WotC designed this with specific goals in mind to make it easier to use.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 29, 2005)

I don't like it. It sacrifices practicality for ease of use, and I had no trouble with the paragraph style. Things are listed multiple times making it take up even more space. If I were to print up NPCs like this instead of paragraph style, I would have maybe two per page whereas I can get four per page easily with paragraphs.


----------



## Ranes (May 29, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Also, in the mag it would help me if the stat block section were on a slightly different color background, like a sidebar but without the border. And they could alternate colors if they're presenting 2 or 3 or more stat blocks in a row so it's easy to see where one stat block ends and another begins.




I like all your suggestions, Eric, except this one. Since Dungeon changed format there have been far fewer coloured backgrounds obscuring the text. This makes it a lot easier for me to scan adventures into my word processor using OCR. I know some other DMs do the same thing. For us, coloured text is fine but coloured backgrounds are show-stoppers.

I don't have 124 yet (just got 123) but, from Emirikol's post, the new stat block format looks very helpful. Still, I'd like to see how much space it would take to describe a high level character's abilities in this format before I decide which I prefer.


----------



## The_Gunslinger658 (May 29, 2005)

How do you OCR a document?


Scott


----------



## Ranes (May 29, 2005)

Er. You don't. Sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. When I want to use something from Dungeon magazine in my game (an NPC, item, adventure, whatever) I scan it, so I can refer to it on my laptop. I use OCR so that I can edit said NPC, item, adventure, whatever... When Eric referred to the use of coloured text backgrounds in Dungeon I just wanted to point out that doing so would present a small minority of DMs with a problem (ie more work).


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 29, 2005)

Uhh, where is the normal attacks info? Are they only including the rage-modified attacks?


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (May 29, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It sacrifices practicality for ease of use




Is that conceptually possible?

I _really_ like this style.

Space used to increase playability, and therefore fun, is space well spent.


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (May 29, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Uhh, where is the normal attacks info? Are they only including the rage-modified attacks?




No, he left some of the statblock out. Check my next post.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 29, 2005)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> No, he left some of the statblock out. Check my next post.




It's even longer???



			
				Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> Is that conceptually possible?




Of course. Practicality in creation as well as use. With this you need a sheet per NPC, less NPCs will be able to be statted out in official sources, and it will be more expensive per npc for them to publish. It also takes longer to create the NPCs becuase it is a more complicated statting process. Is it really worth it if you can find the attack bonus .5 seconds sooner? Actually, because I'm swapping out more pages during combat, it might increase the time it takes to find the stats.

EDIT: Is the raging strength an error in the origional? It's really bugging me.


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (May 29, 2005)

This is a little bit closer to what it actually looks like on paper:


*KULLEN                       CR3*
Half-orc barbarian 3
NE Medium humanoid (orc)
*Init* +1; *Senses* darkvision 60 ft.; Spot-1, Listen +5
*Languages* Common, Orc
-------------------------------------------------------
*AC* 11, touch 11, flat-footed 10; uncanny dodge
*hp* 31 (3 HD)
*Fort* +5, *Ref* +2, *Will* +0
-------------------------------------------------------
*Spd* 40 ft.
*Melee* _+1 greataxe_ +7 (1d12+5/x3)
*Base Atk* +3; *Grp* +6
*Attack Options* Cleave, Power Attack
*Special Attack* Rage 1/day
*Combat Gear* _potion of jump, potion of cure light wounds,
potion of mage armor_
-------------------------------------------------------
*Abilities* Str 17, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 10
*SQ* fast movement, illiteracy, trap sense +1,
uncanny dodge
*Feats* Cleave, Power Attack
*Skills* Intimidate +6, Jump +13, Listen +5
*Possessions* combat gear, _+1 greataxe_, 3gp
*Rage (Ex):*  When he rages, Kullen has the following changed statistics:
..*AC* 9, touch 9, flat-footed 8
..*hp* 37 (3 HD)
..*Fort* +7, *Will* +2, 
..*Melee* _+1 greataxe_ +9 (1d12+8/x3)
..*Grp* +9
..*Abilities* Str 19, Con 18
..*Skills* Jump +15


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (May 29, 2005)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Still, I'd like to see how much space it would take to describe a high level character's abilities in this format before I decide which I prefer.




On page 87, there is a Female human undead cleric (Wee Jas) 15. The stat block is two full columns.

Hower, they are _really_ easy to read, so I think it's worth it. Besides, that character would probably have taken nearly that much space in the previous style anyway.

This style does a lot of the work for me, and I think that trading space for less work is a great trade. The easier it is to use the more fun it is to play.


----------



## MichaelH (May 29, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Is the raging strength an error in the origional? It's really bugging me.



Yes, it is.  The raging strength should be 21.  The raging melee attack stats are correct, however.


----------



## Garnfellow (May 29, 2005)

Does the new stat block format distinguish between Attack and Full Attack? (I've found that distinction pretty helpful.)

I'm not quite sure I understand just what Combat Gear is or how Attack Options differs from Special Attacks.


----------



## Agamon (May 29, 2005)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> On page 87, there is a Female human undead cleric (Wee Jas) 15. The stat block is two full columns.
> 
> Hower, they are _really_ easy to read, so I think it's worth it. Besides, that character would probably have taken nearly that much space in the previous style anyway.
> 
> This style does a lot of the work for me, and I think that trading space for less work is a great trade. The easier it is to use the more fun it is to play.




Yeah, the sample here shows what it would look like for a simple NPC, which doesn't do it justice, really.  The bang for your buck comes when using it for high-level NPCs, where it is very nice indeed.


----------



## EricNoah (May 29, 2005)

I would guess that Combat Options are special attacks that one can choose to apply (or not apply) to improve a standard melee and ranged attack (things like Sneak Attack, Improved Grab, etc.) vs. stand-alone special powers.  

I wonder if this style works best in a 3-column (magazine-style) layout vs. a 2-column or no-column layout.  Since the columns are narrow anyway, it doesn't really eat up that much extra space when you break the lines more frequently.  

I've got a pretty close variant of this set up in my copy of eTools now; I'll see how I like it as time goes by.


----------



## Mystery Man (May 29, 2005)

I actually _do_ like it.


----------



## Agamon (May 29, 2005)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Does the new stat block format distinguish between Attack and Full Attack? (I've found that distinction pretty helpful.)




Yup.



> ...
> *Melee* _+1 greataxe_ +7 (1d12+5/x3)
> *Base Atk* +3; *Grp* +6
> ...




Edit: Oh, wait, you mean standard attack and full attack.  My bad.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 29, 2005)

Well, if you compare Kullen's statblock (Bar 3) with Stone Keeper's statblock (Dungeon 117 pg 26 Barb 1/War 1) Kullen's statblock is 29 lines and Stone Keeper's is 20. Both have rage informtion.

Despite that big difference, I still prefer the new statblock for one reason: not only is it faster to find things, I'll know the special attacks and such are there in the first place. In the old statblock, I often missed important special abilities because the information density was incredibly hard on my eyes.


----------



## IronWolf (May 29, 2005)

The new stat block is nice, makes it easier to see things at a glance.  That can mean a lot in the middle of the game if you need to check something real quick.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 29, 2005)

I like what I see so far, but I want to see how much space it takes up before I give it my "seal of approval".   

But I do like the concept and the fact that WotC continues to try to improve the meat n' potatoes aspects of the game. If I had a dollar for every time I overlooked SR, or fast healing, or scent, etc., I'd be a wealthy gamer indeed! (actually I wouldn't cuz I'd just spend it all on those darn addictive D&D crack minis, but you get the point).

edit: I really like having languages upfront as that's something I overlook far too often.


----------



## Emirikol (May 29, 2005)

*4th Edition..ability scores reduced to???*

I pulled out an issue of #123 and compared one of those 30th level characters with one in this issue and MAN, WHAT A DIFFERENCE!

It's logically laid out:
Senses and Initiative first
AC is EASY to find, unlike the old stat block system where it took up an extra moment (I'm sure that's never hard for a DM who's had a beer or two and has been playing for 16 hours straight 

Combat gear is INGENIOUSLY located

OFF TOPIC:  Looking at it made me wonder one thing now though...remember how 5 different saving throws became obsolete after 2nd ed?   Ever wonder about ability scores?  No, not that there needs to be fewer...but take a look at them right now..what do you have to calculate in your mind everytime you look at an ability score?...it's bonus...Anybody know where I'm going with this?  Will 4th edition move to bonuses instead of the extra step in calculation?  Will you have stats like this:  Str+3, Dex+1,Con+2,Int-3,Wis+0,Cha+0.  Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, why we stick to the 3-18 ability scores instead of using a bonus?

jh





...


----------



## Emirikol (May 29, 2005)

BTW, who can tell me what FONT that is they are using for the stat block?  Erik?

jh


----------



## Berandor (May 29, 2005)

Not to sound greedy, but could someone post a longer statblock, say of a higher-level character where information becomes really hard to track?

Thanks.


----------



## Kesh (May 29, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> OFF TOPIC:  Looking at it made me wonder one thing now though...remember how 5 different saving throws became obsolete after 2nd ed?   Ever wonder about ability scores?  No, not that there needs to be fewer...but take a look at them right now..what do you have to calculate in your mind everytime you look at an ability score?...it's bonus...Anybody know where I'm going with this?  Will 4th edition move to bonuses instead of the extra step in calculation?  Will you have stats like this:  Str+3, Dex+1,Con+2,Int-3,Wis+0,Cha+0.  Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, why we stick to the 3-18 ability scores instead of using a bonus?



 Nope. _Blue Rose_ did exactly what you mention: just uses the bonuses themselves, no 3-18 numbers for the stats. And from what I can tell, it works flawlessly.


----------



## Berandor (May 29, 2005)

I think "My strength is +4" sounds even dorkier than "my strength is 18!"


----------



## Emirikol (May 29, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Not to sound greedy, but could someone post a longer statblock, say of a higher-level character where information becomes really hard to track?
> 
> Thanks.





DONE  

See new download in original post (page two of the download is Arodnap..CR 19)

JH


----------



## Felon (May 29, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> DONE
> See new download in original post (page two of the download is Arodnap..CR 19)
> JH




Wotta guy! Bravo!

This new block rocks. I have seen a DM throw barbarian orcs, only to forget the benefits of the barbarian class offers things like protection from the rogue's sneak, a bonus to Will saves while raging, and damage reduction. Not to mention forgetting that the damn things should be power-attacking and cleaving when they drop one of us. It wasn't just a matter of the DM needing 5 seconds longer to find something, it was a matter of him finding it before he simply gave up, or he forgot it was there in the first place.

Wait, what am I saying? This new block's gonna get me kilt!


----------



## Droogie (May 29, 2005)

Nice, very nice. Basically you get the top priority info in the first section, defense in the second, offense in the third, and everything else in the fourth. Very intuitive.

Noticed one thing- the undead cleric should have the effects of her amulet displayed in the defense section. Looks like they forgot it.


----------



## Staffan (May 29, 2005)

I like it. When I write up NPCs and monsters for my own use and when taking notes for running published adventures, I like to put them in the same format as the MM (minus some of the lines, like terrain and stuff) because I hate the normal statblocks. This is an improvement on those.


----------



## nerfherder (May 29, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Will 4th edition move to bonuses instead of the extra step in calculation?  Will you have stats like this:  Str+3, Dex+1,Con+2,Int-3,Wis+0,Cha+0.  Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, why we stick to the 3-18 ability scores instead of using a bonus?
> ...



You mean like Jonathan Tweet used in Ars Magica?  What's that guy doing these days...?   

Cheers,
Liam


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 29, 2005)

You still need the actual stats (not the mods) for purposes of enhancements, pre-reqs, and future advancement. And if it's not in the stat block, where would it be? Personally, however, I do write in the mods when making my own stat blocks, especially when the stats are way higher than those you would normally see (like, into the high 20s and 30s).


----------



## Simplicity (May 29, 2005)

I wonder what exactly is the distinction between "combat gear" and possessions.
One of the stat blocks lists a brooch of shielding (combat gear, no?) in the possessions list.  One of them has an amulet of displacement in both the combat gear list and the possessions list (which I'm sure is an error).  

Maybe it'll just take some time for everyone to get used to writing these things properly,
but I have to say the combat gear section alone makes this stat block format USEFUL.
I can't think of how many times my NPCs have died bitter, ironic deaths while their cure serious wounds potions sit idly by waiting to be looted.

The extra space problem sucks, but it's probably not too bad in the three column format.


----------



## Breakdaddy (May 30, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> I think "My strength is +4" sounds even dorkier than "my strength is 18!"




You're playing Dungeons & Dragons, pal, if you are trying to be "cool" then you failed your saving throw.


----------



## Monte At Home (May 30, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, why we stick to the 3-18 ability scores instead of using a bonus?




Basically, no. This came up in 3rd Edition design. Twice, actually. And we considered it very strongly. But we ruled it out because we were afraid it would be perceived as a really big change (when in fact it really isn't).

It's easy for me to look at things now and say we should have done it. But considering that the times (and opinions) were different then, I think it's a decision I can still stand behind.

But yeah, I'd be surprised if it survived to another edition. 


And to be on topic: I like the new stat blocks too. I don't love them, but they're a clear step forward. There's still too much clutter on them. When I look at the guy (Filge) on page 45 of the new issue, it strikes me that we probably don't need to know that he's got Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion as a feat. And is he likely, as an NPC, to make a Knowledge (religion) check during the encounter? And I know that as a reader I don't need to know that he's got the Toughness feat. But these are minor quibbles. Like I wrote on my site, I think it's awesome that they're willing to reexamine this kind of issue and make changes.


----------



## A'koss (May 30, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> Basically, no. This came up in 3rd Edition design. Twice, actually. And we considered it very strongly. But we ruled it out because we were afraid it would be perceived as a really big change (when in fact it really isn't).
> 
> It's easy for me to look at things now and say we should have done it. But considering that the times (and opinions) were different then, I think it's a decision I can still stand behind.
> 
> But yeah, I'd be surprised if it survived to another edition.



Interesting... To be honest though, I wouldn't be surprised if it survived another edition out of nostalgic attachment. There's something about having an 18 in an ability score that just says "D&D"...



> And to be on topic: I like the new stat blocks too. I don't love them, but they're a clear step forward. There's still too much clutter on them. When I look at the guy (Filge) on page 45 of the new issue, it strikes me that we probably don't need to know that he's got Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion as a feat. And is he likely, as an NPC, to make a Knowledge (religion) check during the encounter? And I know that as a reader I don't need to know that he's got the Toughness feat. But these are minor quibbles. Like I wrote on my site, I think it's awesome that they're willing to reexamine this kind of issue and make changes.



I see where you're coming from but if you didn't see the useless feats and skills, how would you know it wasn't an unintended omission? There are way too many editing mistakes in d20 stat blocks (from everyone, mind) and this would only make designers lazier in tracking them down IMO (now you can hide mistakes in "omitted" skills and feats).


----------



## EricNoah (May 30, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> DONE
> 
> See new download in original post (page two of the download is Arodnap..CR 19)
> 
> JH




Thanks!

Another suggestion to the Dungeon staff if you have your ears on; any magic item or condition that grants a miss chance should be called out near the AC area (in my opinion).  Example: that lich with the displacement amulet -- would be handy to know that there's a 50% miss chance.


----------



## scourger (May 30, 2005)

The 3-18 ability score range has to stay.  It's too important for random ability score generation by rolling dice.


----------



## Obscure (May 30, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> The DMGII introduces this new stat block, we'll probably be seeing this in WotC's new adventure path, as well as all new accessories.




Has there been confirmation of a new WotC Adventure Path?  Or are you referring to Dungeon's AP?


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 30, 2005)

Obscure said:
			
		

> Has there been confirmation of a new WotC Adventure Path?  Or are you referring to Dungeon's AP?





The new AP Age of Worms from Dungeon


----------



## Glyfair (May 30, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> When I look at the guy (Filge) on page 45 of the new issue, it strikes me that we probably don't need to know that he's got Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion as a feat. And is he likely, as an NPC, to make a Knowledge (religion) check during the encounter? And I know that as a reader I don't need to know that he's got the Toughness feat. But these are minor quibbles.




I agree when I'm running the adventure, I don't need to know these things.  On the other hand, a lot of people use the NPCs for other things and knowing some of those things could be useful.

Also, don't forget the small number of people who go through stat blocks and look for missing feats, skill points, etc.  You don't want to ruin their fun


----------



## LeapingShark (May 30, 2005)

The new statblock is great, very nice!   

One concern though is that I always hear about all the supplemental info that was edited out or cut from various Dungeon Mag adventures for space reasons, and I wonder what cool tidbits and extra lines of background info this statblock will be forcing out every month.  :\


----------



## Felon (May 30, 2005)

So, what about the stat block format for rooms? Is that format now official for _Dungeon_? 

This is what I speak of (excerpts from WotC's Return to Undermountain web article):

*Room 6 Summary* 

*Creatures:* (1) One 5th-level aristocrat human ghost.
*Traps:* (Many) See below.
*Terrain:* Normal, but random trap activation in each square.
*Lighting Conditions:* Bright (due to the fire and lightning traps).
*Magic:* None except treasure (faint transmutation).
*Detectable Alignments: * None or moderate evil. The ghost is on the Ethereal Plane until she manifests.
*Secrets:* (2)The chest and its contents appear to be the treasure, but the chain that binds them is more valuable. Also, the corpse in the room hides the secret to permanently defeating the ghost.
*Treasure: * (5,535 gp) A jeweled chest worth worth 10 gp. Twenty gems worth 10 gp. A +1 adamantine spiked chain worth 5,325 gp.

*Room 5 Summary* 

*Creatures:* (12) Nine 1st-level kobold warriors, two 2nd-level kobold fighters, and one 4th-level kobold fighter.
*Traps:* (1) Two falling portcullises brought down by pulling a lever.
*Terrain:* Normal, but falling portcullises can block movement.
*Lighting Conditions:* Darkness and a darkness curtain. Darkness: Be sure to keep track of sighting distances between foes in the long halls. Darkness Curtain: This opaque curtain of darkness completely blocks sight (even darkvision), but it is otherwise harmless; note the curtain's location on the map.
*Magic:* None except treasure.
*Detectable Alignments:* None or faint evil. The kobolds detect as faint evil, but they should be out of range at the beginning of the encounter.
*Secrets:* (2) There is a secret door in the room, and a hidden lever drops and raises two portcullises.
*Treasure:* The kobold's equipment. The kobolds should be equipped as normal for their level (reference the miniatures' cards if you have them) except the warriors have masterwork light crossbows built for Small characters.

I like this format. It at least make it easier to skim through a dungeon. Seems to only be used sporadically in _Dungeon_ though.


----------



## Monte At Home (May 30, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I agree when I'm running the adventure, I don't need to know these things.  On the other hand, a lot of people use the NPCs for other things and knowing some of those things could be useful.




I hear you, but I'm a "right tool for the right job" kind of guy. In an adventure encounter where I'm probably just going to run this guy in a fight with the PCs, I want it as streamlined as possible. If I want a fully-fleshed out NPC, I'll get an NPC book like the Rogue's Gallery.



> Also, don't forget the small number of people who go through stat blocks and look for missing feats, skill points, etc.  You don't want to ruin their fun




Yes. Yes I do.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 30, 2005)

Obscure said:
			
		

> Has there been confirmation of a new WotC Adventure Path?  Or are you referring to Dungeon's AP?



Brain fart on my part, I blurred WotC returning to the fold of adventure producing again with Paizo restarting a new adventure path.

As an aside, there are design guidelines for stat blocks in the RPGA campaigns, LG, Green Regent, Mark of Heroes... etc. Wonder if these guidelines will filter over there as well. I know when I wrote adventures for my region in LG we were even restricted as to the precise order stat blocks could be arranged in the appendix. I hope so.


----------



## Simplicity (May 30, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> Basically, no. This came up in 3rd Edition design. Twice, actually. And we considered it very strongly. But we ruled it out because we were afraid it would be perceived as a really big change (when in fact it really isn't).




Argg...  As great of a game rule change as this would be, it would be like a dagger in my heart.



> When I look at the guy (Filge) on page 45 of the new issue, it strikes me that we probably don't need to know that he's got Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion as a feat. And is he likely, as an NPC, to make a Knowledge (religion) check during the encounter?




What should probably be done is that when a character has feats or skills that you really don't care about, there should just the something like the following:

Feats Cleave, Power Attack, (+1 feat)
Skills Intimidate +6, Jump +13, Listen +5, (+4 ranks)



> I see where you're coming from but if you didn't see the useless feats and skills, how would you know it wasn't an unintended omission? There are way too many editing mistakes in d20 stat blocks (from everyone, mind) and this would only make designers lazier in tracking them down IMO (now you can hide mistakes in "omitted" skills and feats).




The above format would protect against omissions and also keep the size down for those damn NPCs who have more capabilities than they know what to do with.  DMs can maybe fill in those feats and skills if it turns out that the NPC doesn't die within the first 5 minutes of their career in the campaign.


----------



## Felon (May 30, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> Basically, no. This came up in 3rd Edition design. Twice, actually. And we considered it very strongly. But we ruled it out because we were afraid it would be perceived as a really big change (when in fact it really isn't).




I just wanna know why you guys decided to only post a range of numbers under the Organization entry, without coming right out and stating how many dice to roll.


----------



## Campbell (May 30, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> I just wanna know why you guys decided to only post a range of numbers under the Organization entry, without coming right out and stating how many dice to roll.




I actually believe that was a sound design decision. That way the individual DM may use a number within the range given to design a suitable encounter. Of course, I may be off my rocker on this one.


----------



## Felon (May 30, 2005)

Well, the DM can always just pull a number out of his bum...most do, I suspect. 

But if you're going to bother having an entry for it, make the generation method clear. Otherwise, just ditch it altogether, save some space, and let the DM rely on bum-pulls.


----------



## Simplicity (May 30, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> So, what about the stat block format for rooms? Is that format now official for _Dungeon_?
> 
> This is what I speak of (excerpts from WotC's Return to Undermountain web article):
> 
> ...




Don't forget about the "Relevant skill checks" section.  Also interesting...


----------



## Glyfair (May 30, 2005)

The DMG II preview in Game Trade Magazine has a really nice example of the stat block of a high level character - the 20th level high priest (I assume it's the same, I haven't compared them closely).  

Some highlights for me:

1)  Lots of details about abilities - For example, "Command undead 5/day (+4, 2d6+19, 17th)" and "Smite 1/day (+4 attack, +17 damage)."

2)  DCs listed for every spell where it is relevant (especially important with this character because of varying bonuses to different types of spell for each level).  Also, "D" notation by domain spells.

3) Notation of which spells are used and in effect (in this case, certain spells and spell-like abilities are used daily).


----------



## S'mon (May 30, 2005)

Looks nice - looks a lot like my Quick NPC System stat block.


----------



## S'mon (May 30, 2005)

scourger said:
			
		

> The 3-18 ability score range has to stay.  It's too important for random ability score generation by rolling dice.




I'm slightly conflicted on this - I quite like the rolling of the PCs on 3/4d6, but I never use this for NPCs; my NPCs are always listed "STR+4" rather than "18".  Actually the only really good reason to retain the 3-18 stats is one that 3e doesn't even address, which is that making an eg STR check on d20+mod often gives far too much randomness, ST 18 is only 20% better than ST 10 even though it's theoretically about 4 times as strong! For those kind of rolls I do it on 1d6 + full stat vs the DC; or just use a minimum STR to accomplish the task - if a task needs ST 22 then 1 ST 22 or 2 18s will do it.  Probably the latter approach fits "d20 system" better.


----------



## MerricB (May 30, 2005)

Of course, in the Miniatures Game, they only list the most important features on the stat cards, and leave out the rest. (So, you have to notice the HP are high to realise about Toughness, etc.)

Cheers!


----------



## John Cooper (May 30, 2005)

> Glyfair:  Also, don't forget the small number of people who go through stat blocks and look for missing feats, skill points, etc. You don't want to ruin their fun





> Monte At Home:  Yes. Yes I do.



Ouch.


----------



## Mark (May 30, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, the DM can always just pull a number out of his bum...most do, I suspect.
> 
> But if you're going to bother having an entry for it, make the generation method clear. Otherwise, just ditch it altogether, save some space, and let the DM rely on bum-pulls.





Bum-Pulls


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (May 30, 2005)

John Cooper said:
			
		

> Ouch.




You go, John.

I love Monte's work, but I love yours, too.

It's guys like you that make guys like him better.

He shouldn't have anything against what you do. After all, you're just making sure people faithfully follow the system he helped design.

Plus, I doubt Monte really wants to ruin _anybody's_ fun. He seems to me like the kind of guy that wants everybody to be having as much fun as possible. 

And another thing--he can pretend to not be interested in that kind of thing, but he actually _married_ an editor, and the best one in the business, too!


----------



## A'koss (May 30, 2005)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> You go, John.
> 
> I love Monte's work, but I love yours, too.
> 
> It's guys like you that make guys like him better.



Indeed, I think John's work has been immensely helpful and I can't imagine a single gamer not appreciating it. Hell, we need _more _guys like him out there!

Cheers!


----------



## Grazzt (May 30, 2005)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> ...but he actually _married_ an editor, and the best one in the business, too!




Kim Mohan?


----------



## Emirikol (May 30, 2005)

*TRAP stat blocks*

Since we're on the subject, I'd like to see the stat blocks for  Traps become easier for DM's to read too.  

As for mechanizing the rest of the DM's text, I'm not quite sold on that yet.  DUNGEON tried the layout for each and nobody really commented either way.  
"Lighting:  blah blah
Sound:  blah blah clanking from hallways east #42z
Auras: slight evil coming from the tapestry"

I think it's because D&D, although it has a LOT of dungeons, people eventually tire of long ones and move back to combination story(with a little dungeon) scenarios in which the DM's text becomes more complicated.

ANYTHING that makes the job of the DM easier is good for me and for the game and making stat blocks easier to read and even more logical is great!

jh
lakewood, CO, USA



..


----------



## A'koss (May 30, 2005)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Kim Mohan?



Heh... Y'know, I went through the entire 3e playtest and probably some months afterward thinking Kim was a woman. Kim was cooridinating the playtest at the time. Around the table we would say, "Oh, we better get this week's notes off to Kimmy! I wonder what Kimmy's baking today...?"  

Cheers!


----------



## Monte At Home (May 30, 2005)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> He shouldn't have anything against what you do.




And I don't. While I haven't read any of John's reviews, I've heard about them here and thus understand that he's great with stats. And that's cool. I'm not trying to slam anyone with my attempt at humor.

Rules are rules and they should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. 

However, that said, I think it's a waste of space to provide information (like listing Toughness as a feat, or Iron Will) that's only there to "show your work." While I don't object to people checking stats, there's no good game-play reason why an adventure NPC needs that kind of information or even the ability to be checked for accuracy. Ultimately, if an NPC has a +3 instead of a +2 in a skill, or what have you, while it affects game play, it won't disrupt game play. If I run an orc in an adventure with a +1 initiative bonus or a wizard with one too-few feats, the adventure's not ruined. In fact, there's a HUGE chance that no one will even notice.

I don't think anyone's going to accuse me of not caring about the rules any time soon. I'm not saying this to justify poor use of the rules. I'm saying it because I want the right tool for the right situation. In this case, I want as streamlined a tool as possible. Monster stats in a monster book, or fully-fleshed out NPCs in an NPC book are one thing, but stat blocks in an adventure are another. 



> he can pretend to not be interested in that kind of thing, but he actually _married_ an editor, and the best one in the business, too!




I'm certainly not trying to pretend not to be interested in editing. For the reason you've listed and others, we take editing pretty seriously, and (I hope) it shows. (And thanks on her behalf for the compliment. There's a lot of people, professional and non-professional alike who agree with you, and I'm, of course, one of them.)


----------



## James Jacobs (May 30, 2005)

The new stat block is here to stay, but you can expect some minor adjustments over the next few issues as we settle into the new format. At this point, I'd agree that the main concern is how the short stat blocks get lost in the page. We won't be putting the stat blocks into boxes (this format wreaks havoc on layout, and it's why we went to our current format for read-aloud text). Changing the color of the text is an option, but doing that risks readability. Anyway... we'll figure it out, one way or another.

As for the space issues... it's true that these new stat blocks take up more space than the old ones. That was actually a major concern for me, but in the end it looks like the stat blocks'll rarely be larger than 125% the size of the old ones, and often they'll be much closer in length than that. It's a balancing act; deciding how far to go to make the adventures easier to use over how much text to cram into each one. For something as crucial and integral to the game as a stat block, the choice was simple.

To answer a few specific questions...

Combat Gear is any equipment that the NPC might use in combat in place of an attack. Most wands, staffs, potions, and scrolls go here, as would beads of force, most rods, and anything else you have to give up an action to use. Stuff like magic weapons, armor, ability enhancers, and defensive items go in the possessions list at the bottom, since their effects are generally factored into the statblock elsewhere already. There's a range of items that don't obviously fit into these two categories; the brooch of shielding being one of them. We'll get it figured out eventually, though.

Non Combat Data: One incarnation of the stat block ommitted non-combat stuff like Brew Potion, skills like Knowledge and Craft, and the like. While this information may eventually evolve away like tails or body fur, I'm going to try to keep them in the stat blocks in _Dungeon_ as long as I can, simply because not every encounter with every NPC is always going to be a combat encounter. Putting in all the parts lets people reverse engineer the NPC to make them fit in their campaigns, and increases their utility beyond the scope of an adventure. For example... if one of your  players anounces "I took Leadership as my feat... where's my cohort?" you can just grab an appropriate stat block from some random issue of the magazine without having to worry about what we left out.

Calling out miss chances from displacement and the like is a great idea; it'll be showing up in the Armor Class line.

"Missing content": Stat blocks are an important part of an adventure, but not the MOST important part. That award goes to the adventure's story, or plot. It's like a knife twisting in my gut every time we're forced to cut part of an adventure's story in order to make the thing fit in the magazine. This is the primary reason we've been a lot more draconian in enforcing word counts for unsolicited adventures. It's not there to force the writer to abbreviate his work. It's there to help make sure we won't have to cut any of that work for him to make the adventure fit. Given the choice, I'd much prefer the writer of an adventure decides what stays and what goes from his words than leaving that choice to the editors.

Trap Stat Blocks: Agreed. We'll probably develop a new trap stat block eventually as well. And when we do, it'll probably look similar to the creature stat blocks.

Room Stat Blocks: We have no immediate plans to alter the format we use for rooms. Truth be told... a lot of people read adventures for fun, and turning every room into a stat block may make an encounter easier to run, but I have my doubts it makes the adventure easier to read. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. In any case, instituting such a drastic change at this point isn't going to happen in the magazines simply because we don't have time to re-write every adventure in the magazine. Which is what adopting this style of format would ammount to.

Ability Scores: I actually prefer the concept of listing ability scores as Str +3, Dex +1, etc. I doubt this change'll make it into the magazine though.

Stat Block Police: I honestly don't mind if people reverse engineer stat blocks to double or triple check the math. Reworking stat blocks is actually a great way to familiarize yourself with the rules. What DOES bother me is when someone posts a huge review of a product that lists 50 tiny little stat block errors in a product, but neglect to mention that of those 50 things the product got wrong, it got 5000 things right. If this happened on a test, that'd equate to a score of 99%. Only in the RPG industry is a score of 99% a failing score. It's weird.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 30, 2005)

> Ultimately, if an NPC has a +3 instead of a +2 in a skill, or what have you, while it affects game play, it won't disrupt game play. If I run an orc in an adventure with a +1 initiative bonus or a wizard with one too-few feats, the adventure's not ruined. In fact, there's a HUGE chance that no one will even notice.




The problem is that many times the errors aren't that small.  As far as no one noticing, that may be true, but the chances for an error affecting the game (or a character's life) increases dramatically as the stat blocks become more complicated.

It's the nature of the d20 beast.  To be perfectly honest, I don't _trust_ developers to get stat blocks right.  I've just seen too many errors.  Now if you suddenly don't list things like Toughness or Iron Will because it's not "needed" for the stat block in question, how am I supposed to know if the developer worked it into the stats already or just plain forgot it?

Even suggesting that certain elements of a stat block should be removed hint at the cumbersome nature of the d20 system, especially in high-level play.


----------



## John Cooper (May 30, 2005)

> James Jacobs:  What DOES bother me is when someone posts a huge review of a product that lists 50 tiny little stat block errors in a product, but neglect to mention that of those 50 things the product got wrong, it got 5000 things right. If this happened on a test, that'd equate to a score of 99%. Only in the RPG industry is a score of 99% a failing score. It's weird.



Since I'm working under the assumption that you're referring to my reviews (I'm the only one I know of that habitually lists "50 tiny little stat block errors" in a review of a product), I'll respond.  It seems like your "test" analogy is assuming an English essay test, where the teacher can give you partial credit for the things you got right in your explanation.  I look at it more as a math test: either you arrived at the correct answer, or you didn't.    So if a given stat block has 100 things listed, and two of them are wrong, your "answer" isn't graded as "98% correct" - it's just "incorrect."  And certainly not all stat block errors can be qualified as "tiny little."

In any case, I'm not trying to sway you to my views, merely explain where I'm coming from.


----------



## helium3 (May 30, 2005)

What's the big deal? I've been using stat blocks like this for some time now. And yeah, they do eat up a ton of space. The best solution I've found is to compress the horizontal material in some sense so that it makes more sense to use two columns. Then you can generally get an NPC on a single sheet of paper. Not much room left over for flavor though.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 30, 2005)

John Cooper said:
			
		

> Since I'm working under the assumption that you're referring to my reviews (I'm the only one I know of that habitually lists "50 tiny little stat block errors" in a review of a product), I'll respond.  It seems like your "test" analogy is assuming an English essay test, where the teacher can give you partial credit for the things you got right in your explanation.  I look at it more as a math test: either you arrived at the correct answer, or you didn't.    So if a given stat block has 100 things listed, and two of them are wrong, your "answer" isn't graded as "98% correct" - it's just "incorrect."  And certainly not all stat block errors can be qualified as "tiny little."
> 
> In any case, I'm not trying to sway you to my views, merely explain where I'm coming from.




I think your method works fine in say, a monster book. But I think it detracts greatly from a review of say, an environment book, or setting book, where the stats really aren't as important.
I don't think it's your fault though, so much as your cheerleaders that trumpet every time you find errors in a book. I don't know you from anyone else, but your reviews seem matter of fact, and contain what they will. The bad part is then when someone follows up your matter of fact review with taking shots at the book based on it.
Also, to continue with the offtopicness, when you list a half page of errors, then give the book a good rating, I think you've misrepresented the book with the list of errors. If the review names the book a good buy, but 50% of the review is errors, I think it's a bit unbalanced.


Back ontopic> the new statblock looks handy, but they do need to be boxed or otherwise set off. The text blends togethor. The optimum would be a much reduced Encounter block, with a more expanded NPC entry as appropriate. If you're just going to encounter the thing as a combat entity, just the bare facts are needed. It'd also be handy to do this with some of the MM monsters when used.
But, that'd take even MORE space.


----------



## John Cooper (May 30, 2005)

I have cheerleaders?  Crap!  Don't mention that to my wife!  

It does sound like the new stat blocks should make things run smoother during use, which is obviously a good thing.  I'm also glad to hear that the new system doesn't eat up too much more space, as that was a concern.  I'll have to wait to comment further until I get my hands on the latest _Dungeon_ and see them for myself, but all in all the changes sound like a good thing.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 30, 2005)

John Cooper said:
			
		

> Since I'm working under the assumption that you're referring to my reviews (I'm the only one I know of that habitually lists "50 tiny little stat block errors" in a review of a product), I'll respond.  It seems like your "test" analogy is assuming an English essay test, where the teacher can give you partial credit for the things you got right in your explanation.  I look at it more as a math test: either you arrived at the correct answer, or you didn't.    So if a given stat block has 100 things listed, and two of them are wrong, your "answer" isn't graded as "98% correct" - it's just "incorrect."  And certainly not all stat block errors can be qualified as "tiny little."
> 
> In any case, I'm not trying to sway you to my views, merely explain where I'm coming from.




I agree... not all stat block errors are tiny and little. Some can be huge; the range of the night twist's despair song ability is a great example. As is the hit dice listed for the pyrolisk back in the 1st edition Monster Manual II (they left out a "+," so instead of the pyrolisk having 4+3 Hit Dice it had 43  hit dice... gah!).

As for my "test" analogy, I can see where you're coming from, John. I just feel that calling an entire stat block "incorrect" because someone forgot to account for the –1 size modifier to AC and attacks seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Anyway, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, John. I certainly printed out your list of MM III eratta when I saw it and kept it stuffed in my work copy of MM III (until WotC released the official errata). I certainly hope you do continue to do your reviews along these lines, if only to keep us honest and on our toes so we don't get TOO lazy in the stat block war!


----------



## A'koss (May 30, 2005)

Now, forgive my ignorance here, but aren't there decent programs out there now that can generate accurate statblocks for NPCs and (for the most part) Monsters as well? I mean, even if the program got you 90% of the way there and 10% you had to figure out by hand, I'd _think_ that'd be well worth it. In this day and age I'm puzzled why you'd want to do it by hand (for publication) considering the inherent complexity.

Are they too complicated? Don't meet enough requirements?

Just curious...


----------



## John Cooper (May 30, 2005)

James: Okay, sounds like we're cool, then.  I can certainly see your point of view, as well, and you certainly have a lot more people sharing your view than I have sharing mine.  (If this WAS a "stat block war," my "army" would be destroyed pretty quickly!)  

In any case, keep up the good work on _Dungeon_.  I've really liked what I've seen recently.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Now, forgive my ignorance here, but aren't there decent programs out there now that can generate accurate statblocks for NPCs and (for the most part) Monsters as well? I mean, even if the program got you 90% of the way there and 10% you had to figure out by hand, I'd _think_ that'd be well worth it. In this day and age I'm puzzled why you'd want to do it by hand (for publication) considering the inherent complexity.
> 
> Are they too complicated? Don't meet enough requirements?
> 
> Just curious...




Well, speaking just for myself...

Nobody has yet made such a program available that fits my two required parameters:

1) 100% accurate and error-free.

2) Easy to use.

Here's the thing, though. Even if someone _did_, how would we know? How can we know that the stat block spit out by MS Character 2.0 is accurate?

We can't. That's why most companies--such as Paizo, WotC, SSS, etc.--require that you show your work when you turn in your material. And once I have to show my work _anyway_, it's easier to just do it by hand from scratch, than to do it with a program and then try to retroengineer the mechanics behind it.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 30, 2005)

I'm neutral on the new stat block format - I neither like nor dislike it.

I _do_, however, dislike it for Dungeon magazine. If it's longer and takes more space, then that's a Bad Thing. Already they're telling us that we get fewer high level adventures because of the size of stat blocks. This just makes it worse... thumbs down.


			
				Monte At Home said:
			
		

> When I look at the guy (Filge) on page 45 of the new issue, it strikes me that we probably don't need to know that he's got Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion as a feat. And is he likely, as an NPC, to make a Knowledge (religion) check during the encounter? And I know that as a reader I don't need to know that he's got the Toughness feat. But these are minor quibbles.



This is a far too myopic view for my taste. How do you know that the NPC won't be a recurring character, or used in other ways based on the actions of the PCs? Either full stats or no stats, for me.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2005)

[Random Thought]

I wonder if the solution, for future editions, isn't to have a more comprehensive list of sample NPCs in the DMG. Maybe, say, two or three different examples of each class, with stats at every level from 1 to 20. Then, for modules, Dungeon, future products, etc., many of the NPCs could simply say "Fighter 5 (option 2)." The "stat block" could simply be a list of changes from the standard (such as racial modifiers if the character is an elf, but the standard is human, or a list of magic items).

I wouldn't want to see _every_ NPC done this way, but perhaps it would work for the majority of them, with only truly important (or deliberately different) characters having their own stats.

Note that I'm not necessarily a proponent of this idea. I can see a number of downsides to it. I'm just tossing it out there for consideration.

[/Random Thought]


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 30, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> [Random Thought]
> 
> I wonder if the solution, for future editions, isn't to have a more comprehensive list of sample NPCs in the DMG. Maybe, say, two or three different examples of each class, with stats at every level from 1 to 20. Then, for modules, Dungeon, future products, etc., many of the NPCs could simply say "Fighter 5 (option 2)." The "stat block" could simply be a list of changes from the standard (such as racial modifiers if the character is an elf, but the standard is human, or a list of magic items).
> [/Random Thought]



This sounds like a good idea, but I doubt it'd work for a WotC product.

But, I could see someone coming out with a DM Screen with a couple slots on it. The coming out with "combat cards" for a plethora of pregenerated PC's of varying sorts. The cards could slide into the DM's screen for easy reference during game.

I currently have a little stand with a Cookbook holder on it. I use it for holding Monster Stat's at eye level, but still out of the way. I think a better solution is out there for making the info easily accessible.


----------



## jgsugden (May 30, 2005)

I have been making my own stat blocks since 3.0 came out.  When I look at the 'new' stat blocks from the DMG II, I notice a lot of similarities between my blocks and the 'new blocks':

1.) Precombat information is grouped together at the top of the characvter sheet (initiative, skills related to spotting hiding PCs, etc ...)
2.) Combat information is grouped together (Basic combat abilities with all optional combat abilities listed as combat options, regardless fo whether those options come from feats, skills, items, or class abilities)
3.) Alternative stats presented when rage, potions, or other temporary effects are in place.

I've found my similar layout to be very useful.  It will certainly take me less time to prep materials if the new format is consistently used as I'm just as happy to use it as my current system.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 30, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I _do_, however, dislike it for Dungeon magazine. If it's longer and takes more space, then that's a Bad Thing. Already they're telling us that we get fewer high level adventures because of the size of stat blocks. This just makes it worse... thumbs down.




Not true; we have no plans to decrease the number of high-level adventures in _Dungeon_. We'll continue to print at least one adventure for level 13+ characters in every issue; I'm not sure who "they" are who say that we'll be printing less high-level adventures in the magazine... but I'm happy to say that "they" are flat-out wrong.

The new stat block does indeed take up a little bit more room than the old stat block. However, multi-part adventures (Age of Worms, Shackled City, Shadows of Istivin, and Shards of Eberron) have proven to be much more popular than we anticipated. Old wisdom held that splitting adventures up over multiple issues would annoy the readers. Based on what we've been hearing, this couldn't be more wrong. As long as the individual parts can still be used as stand-alone adventures, you can expect several really long adventures in the magazine in the future.


----------



## A'koss (May 30, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, speaking just for myself...
> 
> Nobody has yet made such a program available that fits my two required parameters:
> 
> ...



So none of them are error-free, even today? I'm very surprised actually. As far as checking for accuracy, I assume you simply look over the stat block just as anyone would - the information should all be there to check against. If an error _does_ crop up, you fix it at the program level, then you know it will _never_ happen again. If an error makes it to publication, you'll only get called on it once.

Ease of use problems? Fair enough. I can't see that being an insurmountable problem though, but if it does exist I can see it turning off many from using it.



> We can't. That's why most companies--such as Paizo, WotC, SSS, etc.--require that you show your work when you turn in your material. And once I have to show my work _anyway_, it's easier to just do it by hand from scratch, than to do it with a program and then try to retroengineer the mechanics behind it.



Unfortunately, showing your work doesn't guarantee accuracy either. Stat blocks beg for automation and quite frankly, I'm shocked there is no viable solution out there after all these years.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, showing your work doesn't guarantee accuracy either. Stat blocks beg for automation and quite frankly, I'm shocked there is no viable solution out there after all these years.




Nothing guarantees accuracy. Ever.

But showing your work guarantees that there are _more opportunities_ for someone to catch the mistake. It means that editors and developers don't have to go back through and redo all the calculations themselves. If they see a mistake, they can see where it happened and fix it. And they're more likely to see that mistake in the first place.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 30, 2005)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Not true; we have no plans to decrease the number of high-level adventures in _Dungeon_. We'll continue to print at least one adventure for level 13+ characters in every issue; I'm not sure who "they" are who say that we'll be printing less high-level adventures in the magazine... but I'm happy to say that "they" are flat-out wrong.



It was someone at Paizo (and maybe even you!). But, that's why I said "high" instead of "higher" (though I admit I wasn't clear at all and should have elaborated) - indeed, epic level (even low epic level, like near 20th) was the topic of the time.

I know that you will continue to have one adventure of 13-20 in each issue (but I do notice that it's usually a lot closer to 13 than it is to 20).

And again - not enough epic level adventures!


> The new stat block does indeed take up a little bit more room than the old stat block. However, multi-part adventures (Age of Worms, Shackled City, Shadows of Istivin, and Shards of Eberron) have proven to be much more popular than we anticipated. Old wisdom held that splitting adventures up over multiple issues would annoy the readers. Based on what we've been hearing, this couldn't be more wrong. As long as the individual parts can still be used as stand-alone adventures, you can expect several really long adventures in the magazine in the future.



W00t! I love my Dungeon subscription...


----------



## A'koss (May 30, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Nothing guarantees accuracy. Ever.
> 
> But showing your work guarantees that there are _more opportunities_ for someone to catch the mistake. It means that editors and developers don't have to go back through and redo all the calculations themselves. If they see a mistake, they can see where it happened and fix it. And they're more likely to see that mistake in the first place.



I see where you're coming from but I don't buy that an automated solution isn't viable. Have the data entry into the program triple-checked, beta-test the hell out of it. I'm by no means suggesting that it is an easy task, but insurmountable?


----------



## James Jacobs (May 30, 2005)

Another problem with automated stat blocks is that they need to have constant updating; whenever a new product comes out, a new host of rules are introduced that the stat block program needs to incorperate. And constant updating means constantly throwing money at the thing to keep it going.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I see where you're coming from but I don't buy that an automated solution isn't viable. Have the data entry into the program triple-checked, beta-test the hell out of it. I'm by no means suggesting that it is an easy task, but insurmountable?




Oh, it's not insurmountable. I'd love to see it done. But here's the catch...

It has to be done by WotC.

There's no way WotC is going to trust anyone else's guarantee of "error-free stat blocks." (And really, who could blame them? I wouldn't either.) So the problem--at least for writers, which is the perspective I'm coming from--is that not only must the program exist, but it must come from a very specific source.

And I just don't think they're going to expend resources or effort on this, when there's so much else they can be doing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2005)

Plus, what James said.


----------



## Ketjak (May 30, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Ease of use problems? Fair enough. I can't see that being an insurmountable problem though, but if it does exist I can see it turning off many from using it.
> 
> Unfortunately, showing your work doesn't guarantee accuracy either. Stat blocks beg for automation and quite frankly, I'm shocked there is no viable solution out there after all these years.




Ease-of-use: The "CharBook" Excel spreadsheet from Brian Wardman (hosted at RPGsheets.com) (http://www.rpgsheets.com/cgi-bin/arcdb.cgi?action=dl&id=1996) is pretty good for character sheet generation, but has no stat block outputs. And it has bugs, but he's working them out.

PC Gen (http://tinyurl.com/ex7nc) is harder to use, much more flexible, and at first had what I might consider insurmountable user interface problems. It's still got a bad UI, though I see it less now that I use it. It outputs stat blocks in a couple of different styles, none of which are complete or bug-free. They're also not in the format I wish they were in, which requires manual editing or I put up with it. Of course, I could learn to edit them, since PC Gen is incredibly customizable.

I don't use PC Gen for very important NPCs or my characters when I play - I use charbook for those, perhaps PC Gen as a "scratch pad" and for lesser characters. 

And both utilities are made by volunteers and take feedback. Truthfully, though I acknowledge their weaknesses they have each saved me dozens of hours - and charbook especially makes leveling a standard character (and now many prestige classes, too) a breeze. I owe them my thanks (again!).


----------



## Grazzt (May 30, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Now if you suddenly don't list things like Toughness or Iron Will because it's not "needed" for the stat block in question, how am I supposed to know if the developer worked it into the stats already or just plain forgot it?




Reverse engineer the stat block. If the monster/NPC/whatever has 3 extra hit points (above its standard hp plus any Con bonus), then chances are very good Toughness is included. 

For example, a monster/NPC with Con 14 and 3d8+9 HD (22 hp) has Toughness included..pretty easy to spot as its Con bonus X HD is +6. So, the extra +3 tacked on has to be from toughness (or some really bad math )

Same with saves. Reverse engineer. If a save is +2 higher than it should be, chances are good again its because of a feat (Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude).


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (May 30, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to slam anyone with my attempt at humor.




Yes, I know your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek, and mine was, too.  

I was just sending out some love to poor John Cooper. I think he is misunderstood, and I for one hope he never stops doing what he does.

Happy Gaming, everybody! My two sons just leveled up their characters today! I'm running them through the dungeon in the Basic Game, and pretending it's the Haunted Halls of Eveningstar. They lost their wizard in an encounter with a couple of orc adventurers, so they decided to head back to Eveningstar, train up, and find another party member before heading back to the dungeon.

I love D&D! It's tons of fun for all of us, and a great excuse to bond with my kids. Huge thanks to guys like Monte and John and James and Erik and all the rest who continue to make it better and better for the rest of us!


----------



## Lord Morte (May 30, 2005)

Does look very good. Nice and simple, easy to read.


----------



## Grazzt (May 30, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Now, forgive my ignorance here, but aren't there decent programs out there now that can generate accurate statblocks for NPCs and (for the most part) Monsters as well? I mean, even if the program got you 90% of the way there and 10% you had to figure out by hand, I'd _think_ that'd be well worth it. In this day and age I'm puzzled why you'd want to do it by hand (for publication) considering the inherent complexity.
> 
> Are they too complicated? Don't meet enough requirements?
> 
> Just curious...




Sean Reynolds has a spreadsheet he uses (or used). I designed one (based of off and expanded from SKR's) for my own use as well. Calculates skill points, # of feats, bonus hp based on feats, monster type (like Construct extra hp), all bonuses, penalties, adjustments to skills, abilities, SA, SQ, spells, psionics, SLA (spell-like abilities, including all DCs) and spits everything out into two separate stat blocks: one like the standard MM layout and another in the style that Necromancer Games uses for its modules/books.

Sean's has/had an option to show work too, so you could see where the modifiers, adjustments, etc came from. Mine does it too, in the sheet, but it doesnt spit that stuff out in the end.

(Just "finished" it a few months ago actually where it will now allow you to stack character classes, up to 7 max, on top of the monster/race/whatever).

Im pretty sure WotC uses a spreadsheet or proggie to do some of the stat block stuff (maybe all of it, maybe just skills, not sure). Someone mentioned something like that before (maybe it was SKR or Monte, I dont recall actually).


----------



## EricNoah (May 30, 2005)

I've got eTools doing this (see links).  It's getting close to the way I want it (it doesn't follow DUNGEON precisely).  This will copy/paste nicely into Word.

http://webpages.charter.net/ericnoah/noahrpg/grell.html

http://webpages.charter.net/ericnoah/noahrpg/mephit.html

Unfortunately, it was never set up to know which SQ items are defensive, which ones are "senses", which feats apply to AC, which magic items might apply to saves or AC, etc.  So I had to make a master list of words it looks for when it combs through the list of class features, feats, magic items, and racial special qualities to decide what goes where; and even then there will be some adjustments by hand afterwards if I decide I want to call out a certain item in a different part of the stat block.  And my skill with xsl is limited (I can follow patterns and cut/paste but can't really do anything new unless I see it done first).


----------



## GlassJaw (May 31, 2005)

> Reverse engineer the stat block.




Well that's what I usually do.  What I meant was _other than_ reverse engineering, how do you know the stat block is correct?  As someone mentioned previously in the thread, I want all the stats or none, regardless of how important they are to the encounter.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Indeed, I think John's work has been immensely helpful and I can't imagine a single gamer not appreciating it. Hell, we need _more _guys like him out there!




As a product buyer, the kind of stat block critique I would really appreciate is:

"This CR 20 BBEG is totally inappropriate for this level 10 scenario.  As GM you *must* redo it if you don't want a TPK.  Here's a suggestion..."

I don't think I have ever seen such a critique.    

The kind of stat block critique I do _not_ appreciate is:

"This CR 20 BBEG has 2 extra ranks in Kno (Arcana)"

That kind of critique seems very common.   Which is strange because as well as being poitnless I'd think this must take more effort than the first, which would actually be useful.  I guess some people just enjoy finding tiny errors.


----------



## A'koss (May 31, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> As a product buyer, the kind of stat block critique I would really appreciate is:
> 
> "This CR 20 BBEG is totally inappropriate for this level 10 scenario. As GM you *must* redo it if you don't want a TPK. Here's a suggestion..."
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen such a critique.



This kind of adventure playtest critique *is* a good idea, we see many adventure threads here that often cover those sorts of problems, but certainly doesn't invalidate the broader stat block checking work being done out there (monster manuals, supplements, etc. in addition to adventures).



> The kind of stat block critique I do _not_ appreciate is:
> 
> "This CR 20 BBEG has 2 extra ranks in Kno (Arcana)"
> 
> That kind of critique seems very common. Which is strange because as well as being poitnless I'd think this must take more effort than the first, which would actually be useful. I guess some people just enjoy finding tiny errors.



This mentality I just don't understand - this work is being done _for your benefit_ and if it helps keep designers more on thier toes, hell, I'm all for it. It's not like they're making *you* find all these mistakes, so what's the problem? If you don't care about this kind of accuracy - ignore it! To not want it yourself I can understand but to disparage that work saddens me greatly. :\ 

A'koss.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 31, 2005)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Reverse engineer the stat block. If the monster/NPC/whatever has 3 extra hit points (above its standard hp plus any Con bonus), then chances are very good Toughness is included.
> 
> For example, a monster/NPC with Con 14 and 3d8+9 HD (22 hp) has Toughness included..pretty easy to spot as its Con bonus X HD is +6. So, the extra +3 tacked on has to be from toughness (or some really bad math )
> 
> Same with saves. Reverse engineer. If a save is +2 higher than it should be, chances are good again its because of a feat (Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude).




I can see the benefit of doign so, but isn't one of the reasons people buy stuff is so that the 'engineering' is done for them? For every suspicious stat block I have to read over, it's time I could be painting a pawn of harassing a paladin with imps.


----------



## Joshua Randall (May 31, 2005)

I think all feats, skill ranks, etc. should be listed in the stat block regardless of format.

And it's funny that Monte singled out Filge's stat block as containing extraneous information, _because Filge is specifically designed to survive the encounter and potentially join the PCs in the next adventure_. Any NPC who could end up adventuring alongside the PCs absolutely needs *all* of his information available. What if the PCs wants Filge to make them some more syringes (Brew Potion)? What if they pick his brain regarding something they found (Knowledge Arcana)? Etc.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 31, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Any NPC who could end up adventuring alongside the PCs absolutely needs *all* of his information available. What if the PCs wants Filge to make them some more syringes (Brew Potion)? What if they pick his brain regarding something they found (Knowledge Arcana)? Etc.



IMO, then put that stuff in the appendix with a compilation of the full-blown information of everything for every NPC, not the body of the adventure. Shortened stat blocks more appropriate in the body of the adventure text.

Then there is something for those who must reverse-engineer it to see if it all was done correctly, and there where it isn't needed, it doesn't clutter the information making it too difficult to use for those who don't micro-analyze the stats.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 31, 2005)

> then put that stuff in the appendix with a compilation of the full-blown information of everything for every NPC, not the body of the adventure. Shortened stat blocks more appropriate in the body of the adventure text.




I agree, and this is a great idea. 

The problem is that with Dungeon, space is an issue.  I can guarantee that there is no way they could repeat stats in the magazine, regardless of how "abridged" one of the stat blocks is.  This would be great for a stand-alone module those, especially the mega-modules with appendices.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 31, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I think all feats, skill ranks, etc. should be listed in the stat block regardless of format.
> 
> And it's funny that Monte singled out Filge's stat block as containing extraneous information, _because Filge is specifically designed to survive the encounter and potentially join the PCs in the next adventure_. Any NPC who could end up adventuring alongside the PCs absolutely needs *all* of his information available. What if the PCs wants Filge to make them some more syringes (Brew Potion)? What if they pick his brain regarding something they found (Knowledge Arcana)? Etc.




I disagree. If the game needs it to keep moving, then I can always assign him a few ranks. I can see the value in having fully fleshed out details, but as long as it's not an unknown listed that's effecting current values presented, I don't think it's a 'huge' issue.

Let me edit this... for home brewed stuff. As a GM, I don't need to know 100% of an NPC's abilities. Yes, cheating but... and for printed materials like Dungeon, yeah, it's good to have it all listed in the first place.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 31, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> The problem is that with Dungeon, space is an issue.  I can guarantee that there is no way they could repeat stats in the magazine, regardless of how "abridged" one of the stat blocks is.  This would be great for a stand-alone module those, especially the mega-modules with appendices.



I agree.

I know Dungeon's staff is stretched thin but in place of an NPC appendix in the module getting this as a download off their website would be fantastic. At least the NPCs that PCs will be involved in heavy interaction outside of combat.


----------



## Henry (May 31, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> Rules are rules and they should be followed unless there's a good reason not to... However, that said, I think it's a waste of space to provide information (like listing Toughness as a feat, or Iron Will) that's only there to "show your work." While I don't object to people checking stats, there's no good game-play reason why an adventure NPC needs that kind of information or even the ability to be checked for accuracy. Ultimately, if an NPC has a +3 instead of a +2 in a skill, or what have you, while it affects game play, it won't disrupt game play.




AHA! Another Henry/S'monite! 

(Or does this make us Monteites?)


----------



## James Jacobs (May 31, 2005)

Heh... yeah, if we were stretched any thinner our inside ropes would come out.

Anyway, we've got no plans to abridge stat blocks in the magazine, with the exception of encounters that probably won't end up in fights. In this case, you'll probably see something like this:

*1. The Flatfish Tavern*
The owner of this filthy tavern is a lean dwarf named Tosker Tarn (LN male dwarf expert 3/rogue 1).

 The PCs aren't supposed to fight Tosker, and even if they do, fighting him won't advance the plot. Therefore, he gets the abridged stat block. But any NPC that might end up being an enemy or an ally that could accompany the PCs gets a full-on stat block.


----------



## Monte At Home (May 31, 2005)

There's always been a real underlying push at WotC/TSR since long before 3E regarding standardization: that something like a stat block has to be universal, and every time you present a new NPC, you've got to use the standard stat block. It's the idea that complete is better than easy to use. This has never been something that I agree with. This is what I meant by "right tool for the right job." For example, why have just one stat block format? You could have a combat stat block (this guy is only here to fight--a guard, a badass who's not going to ever talk, etc.), an interaction stat block (the guy the PCs are likely to talk to), and the full stat block (this guy is going to be a major NPC or it's not at all clear if the PCs will end up talking to him, fighting him, or whatever). You could go a step further and have the "adaptable stat block" that you'd use for the blacksmith in town, for example, that only has his class, level, and craft skill bonuses, because those are the only rolls you're likely to ever make with him (maybe Sense Motive too--that's a skill check handy to have at the ready for anyone in business). The minstrel in the tavern would have a similar stat block, but it would include his Perform, Diplomacy, and Bluff scores instead. 

It's not like we're talking about different rules for different situations, just different presentations. The different presentations could even become visual cues for the DM so he can see at a glance what kind of encounter is coming.

(And sure, the players can always every once in a while throw the DM a curve ball and fight the guy they're supposed to talk to or vice versa, but that's the nature of the beast. It's going to happen in some respect no matter what you do. That's why there's a DM.)


----------



## Monte At Home (May 31, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> And it's funny that Monte singled out Filge's stat block as containing extraneous information, _because Filge is specifically designed to survive the encounter and potentially join the PCs in the next adventure_.




It's true, I only skimmed the adventure (although I plan on reading it fully because it looks quite good). I only chose him because I saw he had Toughness listed in his stat block. Toughness, along with Iron Will, Weapon Focus, and a few others are things that as a DM running the NPC I'll never, ever need to have listed out for me even if he accompanies the PCs on a whole adventure.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 31, 2005)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> The PCs aren't supposed to fight Tosker, and even if they do, fighting him won't advance the plot. Therefore, he gets the abridged stat block. But any NPC that might end up being an enemy or an ally that could accompany the PCs gets a full-on stat block.



This is the wisest decision you can make - and makes my money thrown at Dungeon magazine that much more well spent.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

A'koss, I'm sorry I sadden you greatly...


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> This kind of adventure playtest critique *is* a good idea, we see many adventure threads here that often cover those sorts of problems, but certainly doesn't invalidate the broader stat block checking work being done out there (monster manuals, supplements, etc. in addition to adventures).




I read these boards & the reviews pretty avidly, yet I still find myself innocently buying and running stuff like Lost City of Gaxmoor and Necropolis containing stablocks that I don't realise are appalling (hey, the numbers add up, right?) until the PCs start dying*.  You could say I'm dumb not to spot them myself, but I grew up with 1e where there was far more slack in the system - you _could_ put Asmodeus up vs 10th level PCs and expect them to survive it, somehow.

I'm thinking of buying Hall of Many Panes, another Gygaxian production - hopefully a reviewer or somebody will do that critique this time.

*In particulat, in Gaxmoor watch out for Harecules the Cambion (listed as CR 20 in a level 1-10 scenario, but really he's more a strong CR 21 when you factor in how his magic enhances his combat ability), in Necropolis watch out for the CR 14 Hippodilemon ambush, it was after they killed 2 PCs we quit the scenario, but I think there was plenty of other OTT stuff too, like the ethereal CR 25 quasi-deity serpent.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> AHA! Another Henry/S'monite!
> 
> (Or does this make us Monteites?)




Maybe we're really LostWorldsMikers?    

Let's all say it together now:

"_Rules Are For Players._"


----------



## Ketjak (May 31, 2005)

*It's a user interface*



			
				Monte At Home said:
			
		

> There's always been a real underlying push at WotC/TSR since long before 3E regarding standardization: that something like a stat block has to be universal, and every time you present a new NPC, you've got to use the standard stat block. It's the idea that complete is better than easy to use. This has never been something that I agree with. This is what I meant by "right tool for the right job." For example, why have just one stat block format? You could have a combat stat block (this guy is only here to fight--a guard, a badass who's not going to ever talk, etc.), an interaction stat block (the guy the PCs are likely to talk to), and the full stat block (this guy is going to be a major NPC or it's not at all clear if the PCs will end up talking to him, fighting him, or whatever). You could go a step further and have the "adaptable stat block" that you'd use for the blacksmith in town, for example, that only has his class, level, and craft skill bonuses, because those are the only rolls you're likely to ever make with him (maybe Sense Motive too--that's a skill check handy to have at the ready for anyone in business). The minstrel in the tavern would have a similar stat block, but it would include his Perform, Diplomacy, and Bluff scores instead.
> 
> It's not like we're talking about different rules for different situations, just different presentations. The different presentations could even become visual cues for the DM so he can see at a glance what kind of encounter is coming.
> 
> (And sure, the players can always every once in a while throw the DM a curve ball and fight the guy they're supposed to talk to or vice versa, but that's the nature of the beast. It's going to happen in some respect no matter what you do. That's why there's a DM.)




Monte, I love and respect your work. I cannot do what you do, at least not without about a dozen years of dedicated effort and a good mentor like Coleman along the way. However, except for a few very talented people changing stat block presentation makes them _harder_ to use, not easier. I'm going to go into user interface design for several paragraphs - I'm not impugning your knowledge of UI design and I may state things of which you are already aware. My apologies if I sound pedantic, it's not my intent.

Essentially this is a discussion about user interfaces. In this case, how does a user access information about an NPC or monster (or trap or room...) using a stat block (a display). One of the primary lessons UI designers (should) learn is that the user should not have to relearn the UI with each new screen. If a region of the screen is used for messaging, that area of the screen should always be used for messaging - with (very rare) exceptions, admitted. Imagine your operating system popping up messages in each display corner and the center based on what the OS designer thought was a logical way to display messages depending on the context... top left for memory usage warnings, top right for execution failures, bottom right for dialogs, bottom left for confirmation messages, and center for write failures. A few people will _love_ that. Most will _hate_ it. 

(As an aside, I'd hazard a guess that you don't reconfigure your word processor's menu and toolbar system when you write an adventure compared to writing a sourcebook. You might add a (assuming MS Word) tool bar (like the Comments toolbar) but you probably don't change the order of the buttons, or the placement of the menus.)

If a user seeks information and it is in the same location each time, the user spends less time searching for that bit and has no need to understand or recall anything else except the location of the information. There is one layer of cognition between wanting information and accessing it.

If the location is different based on context, the user must first process what the context is ("ah, this is a combat challenge/social challenge/resource generator"), then must recall the location accurately, then must access the information. It's another layer of cognitive function between the user and the information being sought. Worse, if a mistake is made (by thinking the feat list from the social challenge is in the location of the combat challenge), the user has to mentally backtrack or sort through the different options.

If the location is inconsistently different ("random") users experience frustration and stop trying to access the information.

You can also see this frustration in product reviews in which the reviewer complains the chapters are "out of order" from previous similar products (the original 3E WotC splat books come to mind). You can see it best in reviews of computer software, mostly games, where designers generally change interfaces (display locations, console button functionality, right mouse click functionality) without explanation or warning when it happens. The player (reviewer) gets confused and from personal experience I know it can mess up game sessions. Try it on a child and watch the tears flow (I've done it unintentionally).

There are two great places to study user interface design: 

http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/ (the Hall of Shame is amusing as well as educational, and they have a new Hall of Fame since I last visited)

Blockbuster (Seriously - they've put big money behind figuring out how most people "access" the "information" on their shelves, and have taken great pains to find a good solution.)

You can also Google for "interface hall of shame" - there are many hits returned nowadays that I didn't know about until a few minutes ago. 

- Ket


----------



## Mark (May 31, 2005)

Ya know, someone pointed out to me, and I agree, that it's not really a Stat "Block" so much as a "listing", isn't it?


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

Ket - you're obviously correct about computer UIDs - but really, most NPC stat blocks ought to be so brief & simple that this kind of issue never arises.  Sure, keep the "full stat block" format consistent, but the minimal stat blocks covering everything that's really needed in play for most NPCs needn't be more than 1 line long.  2, tops.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (May 31, 2005)

*I like it!!!!*

I like the new format. I think this'll be the first issue of Dungeon I pick up since my sub expired.

I also say keep the full stat block. For homebrewed stats I leave out stuff like iron will and such, but for published I like to be shown everything. I don't know if it's just a part of me that likes to see it all or what? But keep the full block.


----------



## Ketjak (Jun 1, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Ket - you're obviously correct about computer UIDs - but really, most NPC stat blocks ought to be so brief & simple that this kind of issue never arises.  Sure, keep the "full stat block" format consistent, but the minimal stat blocks covering everything that's really needed in play for most NPCs needn't be more than 1 line long.  2, tops.




Well, it may not be _obvious_...    

I think we agree, though - minimal stat blocks (something like "Rory Jenks, Blacksmith (LN Male human expert 3, craft (blacksmithing) +10, knowledge (local) +5") are cool. The question seems to be "what is 'minimal?'" (The follow-up seems to be "When do we use minimal stat blocks?") And if they're not minimal, it seems they should be comprehensive for flexibility (combat/social/resource generation). And if they're either, they should be accurate.

And for what it's worth, I like the new stat blocks better than the old, though I still begrudge the extra space they take.  I know! Let's run them around the page in the margins!


----------



## Monte At Home (Jun 1, 2005)

Ketjak,

Thanks. That's very interesting food for thought. I'm going to have to think about that some more. I'm not sure I'm convinced that a stat block is the equivalent of a user interface screen, but it's an interesting (and new, to me) way of looking at it.

(If you break RPGs down to their bare minimum components, an NPC you talk to, an NPC that you work with and an NPC that you fight are very, very different aspects of the game, and the basic rules treat them very differently. It's only when you put the trappings of the setting that they look like the same thing. It might be just as apt a comparison to say that they're more like a web browser, an email client and a spreadsheet--they do such different things that they need a different interface. [That analogy could use some work. It's the best I can do on short notice. Like I said, I need to think about this some more.])


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 1, 2005)

Monte, you may be in the unique position of being the person who knows the D&D better than nearly anyone ever.  That might make the need for consistent stat blocks unimportant to you.  

But I agree with those who argue for consistency.  As a DM, I'm juggling a ton of information; the less I have to hunt around for info, the faster the game goes.  

I do think there might be room for a type of reduced stat block; instead of a "Feats" line it would be "Relevant Feats" and instead of "Skills" it might be "Relevant Skills."  Same with SAs, SQs, Equipment/Gear, etc.  Heck, you could eliminate listing any ability score that is not particularly low or high and that would be ok by me.  Though again with ability damage coming in so many forms perhaps it is best to have all six stats listed... 

I think in modern, full-color publishing the publishers should make good use of color to catch the eye.  When I type up my own stat blocks in my adventures, I put everything important in colored text.  AC is always red because it's the one thing I can never seem to find when I need it.  Immunities and resistances are called out in purple or some other color so I can see them.  The Dungeon stat format helps get the defense-related stuff and the offense related stuff into coherent chunks and I like that.  

I also like anything that keeps me from having to flip open a rulebook during the game (for me, rulebooks are what I use during prep, not what I use during the game).  I want monster and character stats spelled out to a certain degree, I ideally want relevant spell info pre-calculated (save DCs, damage, etc.).  Same with magic items, traps, etc. 

What chaps my hide is when the text takes the space to say "see the DMG for more information" or "works just like the XYZ spell in the PHB" when in just about the same amount of space they could just say what the darned thing does.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 1, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I do think there might be room for a type of reduced stat block; instead of a "Feats" line it would be "Relevant Feats" and instead of "Skills" it might be "Relevant Skills."  Same with SAs, SQs, Equipment/Gear, etc.  Heck, you could eliminate listing any ability score that is not particularly low or high and that would be ok by me.  Though again with ability damage coming in so many forms perhaps it is best to have all six stats listed...



Great idea on labeling them as "Relevant [something]".

On the idea of trimming out ability scores that aren't either high or low... this would actually be a throwback to AD&D days, as I recall some of the entries for NPCs in old FR material would list ability scores next the the names of the NPC and only list the ability scores if they were something like 15 and higher, and extremely low scores in the rare case there was an NPC with them.

Maybe only list the ability scores that give bonuses or penalties (I guess the spread of non-bonus/penalty scores was larger than it is in 3.x...), but at that point you are even closer to justifying dumping ability scores completely in favor of exclusively using bonuses and penalties...


----------



## Monte At Home (Jun 1, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> As a DM, I'm juggling a ton of information; the less I have to hunt around for info, the faster the game goes.




Agreed! That's why the new stat block format is sooooo much better than the old one. With the old one, the AC, hit points, etc. just fall where they may in any given stat block, never in the same place in the "block."




> I do think there might be room for a type of reduced stat block; instead of a "Feats" line it would be "Relevant Feats" and instead of "Skills" it might be "Relevant Skills."  Same with SAs, SQs, Equipment/Gear, etc.




Again, I agree 100%. 



> I think in modern, full-color publishing the publishers should make good use of color to catch the eye.




I've been tinkering with the same sorts of ideas, actually.  



> I also like anything that keeps me from having to flip open a rulebook during the game (for me, rulebooks are what I use during prep, not what I use during the game).  I want monster and character stats spelled out to a certain degree, I ideally want relevant spell info pre-calculated (save DCs, damage, etc.).  Same with magic items, traps, etc.




This is a hard line to draw. On the one hand, if you can do it short and susinct, I'm with you 100%. But if you make an overly abbreviated, jumbled, or hard to read composite of a lot of information, I'd much rather just have a page reference to the core book the material, monster, item, spell, etc. can be found. Unaltered MM monsters, for example, I'll always want to use out the MM. The format used in that book was agonized over and redone a number of times, tested by players of all types to determine the easiest way to use monster info. The old stat blocks were never tested, and thrown together (by people other than the core design team at the time) at the last minute based on 2nd edition stat blocks more or less.

But I'm all for making the DM's life as easy as possible, so including appropriate calculated DCs and whatnot is always good.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 1, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I think in modern, full-color publishing the publishers should make good use of color to catch the eye.  When I type up my own stat blocks in my adventures, I put everything important in colored text.  AC is always red because it's the one thing I can never seem to find when I need it.  Immunities and resistances are called out in purple or some other color so I can see them.




A surprisingly large number of our readers are colorblind, and are not always able to read colored text. We still sometimes do it in headers and stuff, but it's something we've got to keep in mind. If all precast spells are listed in red, and someone can't see red (or whatever), I think that guy would be right to complain.

Also, speaking as the captain of the ship, adding a color-coding system for the magazine text would be like opening a Pandora's Box of potential errors, and is not worth the trouble, I'm afraid.

Other folks at other companies may very well disagree, and I wish them luck.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon


----------



## Sammael (Jun 1, 2005)

Having just converted three high-level NPCs to the new stat block as a test run, I can only say this: I LOVE IT. I never even bothered with the old statblock style, which was so cluttered to be nearly unusable; my previous NPC write-ups were similar to Monster Manual creature stats, but the new categorized format looks like it works a whole lot better. I hope future monster write-ups in D&D books will adopt this new format.


----------



## Ketjak (Jun 1, 2005)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> A surprisingly large number of our readers are colorblind, and are not always able to read colored text. We still sometimes do it in headers and stuff, but it's something we've got to keep in mind. If all precast spells are listed in red, and someone can't see red (or whatever), I think that guy would be right to complain.
> 
> Also, speaking as the captain of the ship, adding a color-coding system for the magazine text would be like opening a Pandora's Box of potential errors, and is not worth the trouble, I'm afraid.
> 
> ...




Red and green are the two colors most colorblind people can't see as "red" and "green." (Some have trouble with blue and yellow, and some research* shows there's a wider variety than I am familiar with - I am not color blind.) They're browns or greys, generally speaking. They're the same grey or brown if their saturation is the same; otherwise they're distinct.

Again, the considerate designer attempts never to use red and green in important displays. (Traffic lights have two exclusive indicators of current state: color and vertical position.) In general, because of lighting and reflectivity issues alone I'd stay away from using color as an indicator as much as I could.

* Research:

Computer display color recommendations: http://tinyurl.com/922ml (sunglasses required)
Simulation of color blindness: http://colorlab.wickline.org/colorblind/colorlab/

- Ket


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 1, 2005)

Regardless, Erik's point is that it's a big can of worms to open, and a lot of extra work that also adds a much larger potential for mistakes ("Hey, the attack bonus wasn't Mauve!", "What the...?  The SR should have been green!").


----------



## glass (Jun 1, 2005)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Heh... Y'know, I went through the entire 3e playtest and probably some months afterward thinking Kim was a woman. Kim was cooridinating the playtest at the time. Around the table we would say, "Oh, we better get this week's notes off to Kimmy! I wonder what Kimmy's baking today...?"




Yeah, I thought Kim Mohan was a woman for years too. And Tracy Hickman, and Sandy Peterson, and Lyn Williss...


glass.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 1, 2005)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> A surprisingly large number of our readers are colorblind, and are not always able to read colored text. We still sometimes do it in headers and stuff, but it's something we've got to keep in mind. If all precast spells are listed in red, and someone can't see red (or whatever), I think that guy would be right to complain.




Erik knows of what he speaks. For reference, I have trouble with (usually dependant on shade) - in order of difficulty:

blue/purple [very very bad]
gray/pink
red/green [sideways traffic lights are bad mmmkay?]
black/dark green [I get red and green confused but not black and red, go figure]
orange/yellow

And a few more things I consider non-colors because I can't even tell they exist (like fuchsia, its actually a conspiracy). In addition to these problems, mixed colors that I can technically "see" can give me problems. I have had to outlaw certain dice because I can't read the numbers off the die, a gray/pink hybrid, I think, with red numbers is one of them. It's like it was made to frustrate me.

I'm an extreme case, I think, as there are a half dozen or so colors I have problems with. However, color blindness is common enough and varied enough that it makes it difficult to work around. You can't just avoid red/green combonations, there are a lot of not only color combonations that are difficult for us but there are also other subtleties that can be difficult to work around.

And, my uncle is worse than I am.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 1, 2005)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> A surprisingly large number of our readers are colorblind, and are not always able to read colored text. We still sometimes do it in headers and stuff, but it's something we've got to keep in mind. If all precast spells are listed in red, and someone can't see red (or whatever), I think that guy would be right to complain.



Speaking as a colorblind person   (there are multiple varieties), but the large majority of those who are colorblind can recognize colors pretty well. Having large stretches of a single color is very easy to distinguish. But placing small splotches of colors adjacent to each other that a particular colorblind person, the colorblind person can't easily distinguish which is which.

So a single red word (for those red/green/ colorblind), in a row of black text is easy. But have a row of text that alternates every word red, then green, then red, etc. and you will have a colorblind person probably getting eyestrain.  Myself, I'm red/green and blue/gray colorblind. But I'm only a single person. My colorblindness is bad enough that I'm forbidden from being a pilot or electrician. There are a vast swath of military careers that I can't take either.

I've done cartographic work, creating publish quality maps, and there is a resource many of us use called Color Brewer. It is run by a university and it is based on work funded by the National Science Foundation. I HIGHLY recommend any publisher check it out if they are concerned with issues with publishing colors and colorblindness, photocopy friendliness, LCD friendliness, laptop LCD friendly, CRT friendliness, and color printing friendliness. You can ger CMYK values, RGB values, and more. The site is aimed towards cartographers and thematic map production. The point of Color Brewer is to show which specific patterns of colors work best in for certain cases of color viewing.

I must say, that it is rare to hear (the first time in my life actually just now) a publisher express concern for the colorblind. Bravo!


----------



## Monte At Home (Jun 1, 2005)

Yeah, if I was ever going to do something like that, I'd do it that way. A couple of words or values in a single other color. Not only can most colorblind people note the difference between the other color and black, but any more than that (or more than one second color) and you risk things looking pretty gaudy. Plus, I think that you'd make it so that the second color was a helpful thing (like calling out particularly important info), but not a required thing, so that if you couldn't distinguish the color for whatever reason, the material was still 100% usable.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 1, 2005)

Overdoing colored text wouldn't be helpful; nor would using colors to exclusively communicate "mission-critical" information.  But calling out certain things in another color might be helpful.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2005)

Maybe instead of color, using more conventional techniques like bold, underline, and italics.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 1, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Maybe instead of color, using more conventional techniques like bold, underline, and italics.




Heh, I circle things on my printouts often. I doubt that would work well in print, though.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 1, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Maybe instead of color, using more conventional techniques like bold, underline, and italics.




Bold is used a lot as it is; italics mean something special in D&D-land.  Underlining is about all that's left...


----------



## Sammael (Jun 1, 2005)

Putting boxes around text, perhaps? But it may be a bit too distracting...


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 1, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Bold is used a lot as it is; italics mean something special in D&D-land.  Underlining is about all that's left...



In the case of spells already cast, strikethrough should work.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 1, 2005)

By the way, I really like the new format.  The information I want, right where I want it.  I can't tell you how many times I've scanned stat-blocks, trying to find Saves, for example.  Now they're right where I can see 'em.  I like how it's highlighted based on interaction.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 1, 2005)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> A surprisingly large number of our readers are colorblind, and are not always able to read colored text. We still sometimes do it in headers and stuff, but it's something we've got to keep in mind. If all precast spells are listed in red, and someone can't see red (or whatever), I think that guy would be right to complain.



It could be neat to use as an additional indicator, though. For example, if a cleric has already cast bull's strength before the encounter, his spells could look like this:
*Spells:* (4/3/1, DC = 11+spell level) 0 - _cure minor wounds, guidance, light, vigor_; 1 - _bless, cure light wounds, doom_; 2 - _bull's strength_.


----------



## Chaldfont (Jun 1, 2005)

I like this new stat block and I agree with Monte Cook that there ought to be different stat blocks for different NPCs (combat, interaction, etc). I miss the concise descriptions of the AD&D adventures.

When I write up monsters for my game (which is rare--who has the time?), the stuff I need to know are the interesting combat options and how they work along with the things I'm likely to forget (like Dodge feat, rarely used spells, etc). I'd like to see those things highlighted in bold.

I like that the new stat blocks include stat changes caused by spells, magic items and abilities likely to be used in the fight. My group does this for the PCs already and if I don't do it for the foes, I'll be swamped in-game looking stuff up. 

Anything to make higher-level play easier. My PCs just hit 13th level, and its almost more work than fun to run combats.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 1, 2005)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> Well, it may not be _obvious_...
> 
> I think we agree, though - minimal stat blocks (something like "Rory Jenks, Blacksmith (LN Male human expert 3, craft (blacksmithing) +10, knowledge (local) +5") are cool. The question seems to be "what is 'minimal?'" (The follow-up seems to be "When do we use minimal stat blocks?") And if they're not minimal, it seems they should be comprehensive for flexibility (combat/social/resource generation). And if they're either, they should be accurate.




Basic minimal stat block:

Orc hd 1 hp 5 AC 14 spd 30' Init +0 ATT+4 dam 1d8+3 (axe) Fort +2  Will-1 Ref+0

- It could be twice as long as that & still be ok.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 1, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Basic minimal stat block:
> 
> Orc hd 1 hp 5 AC 14 spd 30' Init +0 ATT+4 dam 1d8+3 (axe) Fort +2  Will-1 Ref+0
> 
> - It could be twice as long as that & still be ok.




It would have to be, at least.  

The wizard cast web, what's the strength check?  Does he have escape artist (we'll assume he doesn't)? Grease is cast, what's his balance check?  Dex check?

Sorcerer is making a ranged touch attack.  How much of that AC is because of armor? 

Players can do a lot of things that require skill checks, referring to stats (what if the PCs can do stat drain), level checks, etc.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 2, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> Yeah, I thought Kim Mohan was a woman for years too. And Tracy Hickman, and Sandy Peterson, and Lyn Williss...
> 
> 
> glass.




Heh, I was the opposite - Sandra Garrity used to be listed as 'Sandy' and I assumed that she was male... until I met her.

The Auld Grump


----------



## S'mon (Jun 2, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> It would have to be, at least.
> 
> The wizard cast web, what's the strength check?  Does he have escape artist (we'll assume he doesn't)? Grease is cast, what's his balance check?  Dex check?
> 
> Sorcerer is making a ranged touch attack.  How much of that AC is because of armor?




I normally include stats that are not +0, for the orc that'd be ST+3 WIS-1.  Unless part of the AC is _not_ armour you don't need to list it.


----------



## SJ (Jun 2, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> As a DM, I'm juggling a ton of information; the less I have to hunt around for info, the faster the game goes.




First, I like the new format.

I'm really interested to see where this goes. I DM 80% of the time, and have done so for a long  while, so I'm no slouch when it comes to quick rulings or book references. But I admit that in my last few sessions I've noticed I spend a lot of time *looking* for info in my stat blocks/notes/monster sheets/sourcebooks instead of *using* it.

I do a lot of prep. My prep time is probably 2x actual game time, but it is rarely the hours before the dice roll and I forget what nasty trick I had planned. I cry a little every time my carefully planned villain gets wacked in 2 rounds and I realize later he never used his full arsenal.

I like Monte's point about streamlining the different blocks for different purposes; almost all of my NPC's either talk (so I don't really care what their stats are, only their personality and interesting items) or try to kick the otyugh out of the PC's (I want all combat-specific info). The complicating issue seems to be what is 'useful' to a wide world of DM's.

Isn't the whole idea of this information that it's supposed to keep me from having to look it up or create it myself? I'll confess to not using a monster/NPC's special ability because I didn't remember what it did and didn't want to have to look it up. It's a fact that whitespace enhances clarity, especially with text fragments. That's why I like the new Dungeon format. And like many others here, hope it's not the be-all end-all, but another step into helping us poor, beleagured DM's entertain the undeserving masses.


----------



## mearls (Jun 2, 2005)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> Basically, no. This came up in 3rd Edition design. Twice, actually. And we considered it very strongly. But we ruled it out because we were afraid it would be perceived as a really big change (when in fact it really isn't).
> 
> It's easy for me to look at things now and say we should have done it. But considering that the times (and opinions) were different then, I think it's a decision I can still stand behind.
> 
> But yeah, I'd be surprised if it survived to another edition.





I think the key issue lies with ability score damage - is there a floor where penalties can't go below? In other words, a creature with a -6 Con is dead (or is it?), but that doesn't easily translate into the flow of the game. It's a lot easier to process that a poison has left me with a Con of 8 and make game decisions based on that, than a negative number with a non-intuitive terminus value.


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 2, 2005)

>>Also, speaking as the captain of the ship, adding a color-coding system for the magazine text would be like opening a Pandora's Box of potential errors, and is not worth the trouble, I'm afraid.


Funny you should mention that..I'm red/green colorblind..I live in a brown, yellow and blue world 

jh


----------



## Monte At Home (Jun 2, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think the key issue lies with ability score damage - is there a floor where penalties can't go below? In other words, a creature with a -6 Con is dead (or is it?), but that doesn't easily translate into the flow of the game. It's a lot easier to process that a poison has left me with a Con of 8 and make game decisions based on that, than a negative number with a non-intuitive terminus value.




And that's no coincidence. Ability score damage was put into the game to give a reason for the numerical values. 

Although since you bring it up, I must admit that I love ability score damage and would indeed hate to see that kind of thing go in some other direction.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 2, 2005)

I suppose it might be possible to re-order the ability scores so that they start at +0 and scale up, with anything below 0 equaling dead (or disabled, or what have you). This has the benefit of removing the necessity for the separation of ability score and ability modifier. But it would also require a complete rescaling of the system from the ground up, taking every single number, check, and roll into account. I'm not really sure it'd be worth it in a future edition, let alone a retooling of the current one.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 2, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I suppose it might be possible to re-order the ability scores so that they start at +0 and scale up, with anything below 0 equaling dead (or disabled, or what have you). This has the benefit of removing the necessity for the separation of ability score and ability modifier. But it would also require a complete rescaling of the system from the ground up, taking every single number, check, and roll into account. I'm not really sure it'd be worth it in a future edition, let alone a retooling of the current one.




That would be the obvious, sensible thing to do - basically just divide current scores by 2 and round down.  Then you would get a sensible system that didn't require translating "18" into "+4", it would just be a "9", with the average score "5", and the score would add straight to the d20 roll.

Admittedly if anything I'd prefer to retain the 3-18 bell curve and just add _that_ to the d20 roll, with reduced Levelling benefits.  So an attack roll would be d20 + STR, plus any class & level bonuses.


----------



## Vascant (Jun 2, 2005)

As some of you may or may not know, I am creating an NPC Generator.. and this new format does cause me a few hours of work but since most of the information is already handled I do not see a ton of work.

Question is simple.  
1.  Does anyone see a reason to keep both new and old format alive at the sametime?
2.  Would a conversion program from old to new format be helpful?

Thanks to those who take a moment and answer..


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 2, 2005)

I did not know, but I am interested, in said NPC generator.

Quite frankly, I just want consistency...but I have no idea about the open-nature of the stat-block, as far as the OGL and SRD are concerned.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 2, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I suppose it might be possible to re-order the ability scores so that they start at +0 and scale up, with anything below 0 equaling dead (or disabled, or what have you). This has the benefit of removing the necessity for the separation of ability score and ability modifier. But it would also require a complete rescaling of the system from the ground up, taking every single number, check, and roll into account. I'm not really sure it'd be worth it in a future edition, let alone a retooling of the current one.



This is the basis of Dungeon Crawl, a silly looting game I've been half-heartedly working on. Just multiply/divide by two to use standard d20 material. The objective of DC is to eliminate complexity. I've mentioned it in passing a few times here. (The name may change before release.)


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 2, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, I just want consistency...but I have no idea about the open-nature of the stat-block, as far as the OGL and SRD are concerned.



Technically the current stat-block is not in the OGL/SRD. It just appeared in a sidebar in the DMG and people have been using it ever since.

You cannot copyright a layout. You can declare it tradedress and vie for trademark protection against its use. Have (Will) WotC do this? That is unknown.

IANAL TINLA YADA YADA YADA


----------



## S'mon (Jun 2, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> You cannot copyright a layout.




I don't know about USA, but in UK formatting can get copyright protection, theoretically at least the stat block format could be protectable.  In actuality though it's more like:

1.  A UK court might hold that the stats of an orc ("AC 14" etc) aren't copyrightable as such.

2.  However, they might then go on to hold that the format of the stats in the Monster Manual is copyrightable, ie if you reproduced the presentation of the Monster Manual orc you'd be breaching WotC's copyright.

- ie the format protection is supplementary to the protection of the text rather than existing in isolation.

I am kinda a lawyer*, but this is just a vague opinion...  

*I have a BA/LLB & PhD in Law but no legal practice qualification.  I do teach IP law, though.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 2, 2005)

And now that copyright law has been mentioned, I give this thread about 3 more posts before it devolves into pointless bickering.

3...


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 2, 2005)

I like the new stat blocks, but I'm hoping that relevent feat options will be listed much earlier in the block, like in those combat options sections.

One of the things I always forget about monsters is if they have dodge, divine might, quicken spell-like ability - ie feats that require my decisions to use and are not just absorbed into the stat block like iron will.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> And now that copyright law has been mentioned, I give this thread about 3 more posts before it devolves into pointless bickering.
> 
> 3...




Nah, there's no point in arguing over it -- there is no way WotC or Paizo or anyone else could protect the order/presentation of stat blocks by copyright law.  Nor would they want to -- it would be ridiculous.  So it's a moot point.


----------



## James Jacobs (Jun 2, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I like the new stat blocks, but I'm hoping that relevent feat options will be listed much earlier in the block, like in those combat options sections.
> 
> One of the things I always forget about monsters is if they have dodge, divine might, quicken spell-like ability - ie feats that require my decisions to use and are not just absorbed into the stat block like iron will.




They will. Dodge and the like will show up on the AC line, Quicken Spell-like Abilitiy would show on the spell-like ability line, etc. We were still sorting out the formatting in issue #124, and that sorting is likely to continue for a few more issues until we've got a handle on the new stat blocks.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 2, 2005)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> OFF TOPIC:  Looking at it made me wonder one thing now though...remember how 5 different saving throws became obsolete after 2nd ed?   Ever wonder about ability scores?  No, not that there needs to be fewer...but take a look at them right now..what do you have to calculate in your mind everytime you look at an ability score?...it's bonus...Anybody know where I'm going with this?  Will 4th edition move to bonuses instead of the extra step in calculation?  Will you have stats like this:  Str+3, Dex+1,Con+2,Int-3,Wis+0,Cha+0.  Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, why we stick to the 3-18 ability scores instead of using a bonus?




Personally, I'd prefer that the stat scores be retained, rather than being discarded and replaced simply by bonuses. Nostalgia? To some extent, but the 3-18 (or whatever) range gives more of an idea to me as to how strong, smart, etc. one character is in relation to another. Using just the bonuses makes the range too small, in my opinion. The trick is to come up with a way to make stat scores relevant beyond what they are already, but retain the ease of use of the bonuses.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 2, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> This is the basis of Dungeon Crawl, a silly looting game I've been half-heartedly working on. Just multiply/divide by two to use standard d20 material. The objective of DC is to eliminate complexity. I've mentioned it in passing a few times here. (The name may change before release.)




Yep, I've seen you mention it.

And ground my teeth in the process, because Dungeon Crawl is also the (tentative, working) title of the Basic D20 game I've been puttering around with in my spare time!   



Seriously, I'm not too worried about it. I have doubts that my DC will see the light of day, since I can't devote all that much time to it without a paid contract. And while it, like yours, is intended to simplify game play, I'm not even remotely taking the same route it sounds like you are. So it shouldn't be a big deal for me to change the name on the off chance it comes up (and assuming you haven't changed the name of yours by then.)


----------



## Henry (Jun 2, 2005)

What's funny is when you both change your product names, and NOTHING gets released as "Dungeon Crawl."


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 2, 2005)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> They will. Dodge and the like will show up on the AC line, Quicken Spell-like Abilitiy would show on the spell-like ability line, etc. We were still sorting out the formatting in issue #124, and that sorting is likely to continue for a few more issues until we've got a handle on the new stat blocks.



Nice to hear this. And I hope this isn't asking for more information than is necessary, but here are some other suggestions.  If all feats are going to be included somewhere, how about include noting Toughness (and Improved Toughness and the unholy toughness quality) on the hit point line.

I would appreciate if on the ability score line noting whether the ability scores were generated with the "elite array", "nonelite array", or "nonstandard". I mean, if the ability score info is already going to flow down to another line anyway, adding this extra info won't take more page space, but does add a litte more meaning.

Just some suggestions...


----------



## James Jacobs (Jun 2, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Nice to hear this. And I hope this isn't asking for more information than is necessary, but here are some other suggestions.  If all feats are going to be included somewhere, how about include noting Toughness (and Improved Toughness and the unholy toughness quality) on the hit point line.
> 
> I would appreciate if on the ability score line noting whether the ability scores were generated with the "elite array", "nonelite array", or "nonstandard". I mean, if the ability score info is already going to flow down to another line anyway, adding this extra info won't take more page space, but does add a litte more meaning.
> 
> Just some suggestions...




These won't be appearing in the stat block; we can't include everything. The stat blocks already take up a lot of room...

Feats like Toughness, Skill Focus, and Lightning Reflexes won't be called out in the text, since their effects are rolled into the stats. They don't get "activated" like Dodge, so the DM doesn't need to be reminded of them. They'll appear only in the creature's Feats line at the end of the stat block.

As for ability scores... I'd guess that 95% of the classed NPCs in the magazine use the elite array, 3% use the nonelite array, and 2% use a nonstandard array. Generally, the ones who use a nonstandard array are BBEGs. In any case, we won't be indicating this info in the stat blocks, since it doesn't really add anything to the stat block or impact game play at all, since the NPC's ability scores have already been generated.


----------



## Altalazar (Jun 2, 2005)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> It comes at the cost of column-inches, though. In other words, less stuff for a friendlier stat block. Personally I think they ARE beautiful and they DO make it easier to reference for combat statistics. However, I could read the old ones.




I think it is a cost well spent - never underestimate the proper use of whitespace and other methods to make something more readable - it doesn't make sense to squeeze in twice as much material if that material is difficult to use.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 2, 2005)

Wildly off-topic, I know, but....



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> What's funny is when you both change your product names, and NOTHING gets released as "Dungeon Crawl."



Actually, my reasoning behind changing it has more to do with the popularity of Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics than anything involving the term or what it means to gamers. If I ever get the game close to finished I'll probably contact JG about it. (Maybe convince him to convert some of his adventures to my system.  )


----------



## Vascant (Jun 3, 2005)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> They will. Dodge and the like will show up on the AC line, Quicken Spell-like Abilitiy would show on the spell-like ability line, etc. We were still sorting out the formatting in issue #124, and that sorting is likely to continue for a few more issues until we've got a handle on the new stat blocks.




Will you by chance posting or documenting these changes for others to read and use?


----------



## James Jacobs (Jun 3, 2005)

Vascant said:
			
		

> Will you by chance posting or documenting these changes for others to read and use?




Not beyond posts here and at paizo.com... there won't really be enough to report, though. The changes should be more or less apparent in the magazine as the stat block's layout and contents evolve. Two things we're adjusting in issue #125, for example:

1.) For creatures not from the Monster Manual (or for Monster Manual creatures that don't have all their special qualities or attacks reprinted in the stat block), we've added a line before Initiative that lists the monster's source, so a DM can go to that book to learn more about the monster.

2.) We're adding a line between a creature's possessions and its special attack/quality descriptive text, if any.

Again, nothing really major. And of course, as readers suggest improvements to the stat block, we're certainly willing to listen and incorperate further changes.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 3, 2005)

What is so great about this stat block? I'm not seeing a decent AC break down.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 3, 2005)

There is no need for an AC breakdown in a statblock, really.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 3, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> There is no need for an AC breakdown in a statblock, really.




Yup -it's nice to have the flatfooted & (especially) touch ACs, but you don't need to know how those were arrived at.  Even in the Monster Manual it seems like for most creatures everything gets rolled into an abstract "Natural Armour Bonus" that in many cases can't bear much relation to the creature's actual natural armour.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 3, 2005)

Having an "unarmored AC" entry would be nice too, for those times you have players with _brilliant energy_ weapons (which ignore armor but not natural armor).


----------



## Zenodotus of Ephesus (Jun 3, 2005)

There are things like _dispel magic_ which have effects on some AC boni but not on others.  Some of these are temporary effects.  It helps to have the various components of the total AC spelled out and in one place so that such things can be adjusted due to circumstances on the fly, and re-adjusted as needed.  I'd rather not have to search through an entire stat block (possessions, spells, etc., and elsewhere in the stat block) to know if an effect or circumstance lowers an AC or not.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 5, 2005)

I've been working with the new format a lot over the last week, statting up some high-level drow NPCs. All-in-all, the new format is proving much easier to work with. The only issues I have are a few needless redundancies. No need to have Listen and Spot details in both the Senses line and in the skill line; no need to have defensive activated feats on both the AC and feat lines; and no need to repeat activated offense feats in the attack options and feat lines. Other than this quibble, I really like the new format.


----------



## Raging Epistaxis (Jun 6, 2005)

I have to say I like the new format as well.  I've spent much less time disrupting the flow of my game looking for one little tidbit of info buried in a statblock.  I look forward to further refinements as they happen.

Also, I assume that once a working final version is arrived at, the Dungeon crew will revise the submission guidelines to reflect the new stat block format?  If you hadn't already considered that, please do - I use those stat block guidelines in a project I help program. 

Thanks

R E


----------



## azhrei_fje (Jun 7, 2005)

I suppose I like the new statblock format.  But I use DMGenie at the gaming table and I know where the information is on the DMGenie screen (and it tracks things like raging automatically, so I don't need to look up differences in ability scores or temporary changes to hp or saves).

I noticed on *Dungeon p97* there is a New Monster entry for the *hordling*, but it uses the existing monster statblock.  Will that change, too, or is the new statblock only for particular instances of a race and not the race itself?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 15, 2005)

Well, like it or not, it is the new format. Personally, I like it quite a bit. In case anyone's interested, here's my new WotC stat block blank, which is what I'll be using when statting out new NPCs. While I'm at it, if anyone notices any problems with it, feel free to post.

*Classed Creature’s or NPC’s name CR#​*[Gender] [Race] [Class abbreviation & level]​[Alignment] [Size] [type] [(subtype)]​[Book] [Page #]​*Init​*# [+ # Dex, +# other bonuses]; *Senses* [special sight] #ft.; Listen #, Spot #​*Languages​*[insert known languages]​*AC​*# [+# Dex +# [armor] +# other], touch # [AC – Armor bonus], flat-footed # [AC – Dex Bonus]
​
*Hp​*# (# HD) [Class [X] # levels + Class [X] # levels + Class [X] # levels]
​
*Immune​*[list immunities, if any]​*Fort​*+# [+# base +# Con], *Ref* +# [+# base +# Dex], *Will* +# [+# base +# Wis]
​
*Spd​*# ft. [,second movement mode # ft. (maneuverability for aerial movement)]​*Melee​*[Weapon] +# ([damage]+bonus/[crit multiplier]​*Base Atk​*+#; *GRP* +#​*Atk Options​*[ex: rage 1/day]​*Combat Gear​*[potions, special items, etc.]​*Spells Prepared​*[(CL, Sor, or Wiz] #th [magic using class level] [delete section if not used]​[List spells, starting with highest level. Add a D for domain spells]​2nd – _spell_ (DC #), _spell_ (DC #)​1st – _spell_ (DC #), _spell_ (DC #)​*Spellbook​*[list spells in spellbook, starting with level 0] [delete section if not used] 0 – all; 1st _spell_, _spell_, _spell_; 2nd _spell_, _spell
_​_
_*Abilities​*Str # [+#], Dex # [+#], Con # [+#], Int # [+#], Wis # [+#], Cha [+#]
​
*SQ​*[Ex:scent, trap sense +1]​*Feats​*explanation on number of feats] [feats]​*Skills​*[Math to show number of skills] [skills]​*Possessions​*[Items worn or carried. Omit items under combat gear]​*[Special Ability] (Rage, for example) Delete section if none]​[Ability Name]​*(Ex or Su)]​[List altered stats, in the same order and format as the stat block above or insert ability description]​


----------



## Vascant (Jul 15, 2005)

You're missing Aura and Weakness just at a glance..
Add Resist and SR..Maybe DR too.. didn't see that and not on the post side
Spell Like Abilities

Thats it I think..

*chuckles* Sorry don't mean to be so critical..I already did this when I converted NPC Designer over


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 15, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> I don't like it.





			
				bbarrington said:
			
		

> I do like it.




Well, you know this means you two are simply going to have to fight to the death now. Que to Star Trek Kirk-Spock fight theme!

I like how consise it is, but what about more complicated villians and monsters.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 15, 2005)

Vascant said:
			
		

> You're missing Aura and Weakness just at a glance..
> Add Resist and SR..Maybe DR too.. didn't see that and not on the post side
> Spell Like Abilities
> 
> ...




No worries. That's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for.


----------



## Vascant (Jul 15, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I like how consise it is, but what about more complicated villians and monsters.




Over on the software forum I posted a Hill Giant Half dragon barbarian of some odd level using the new format.. I think the thread is NPC Generator/Designer


----------



## greywulf (Jul 15, 2005)

I'm waving my hand in the air. I like it! I see a little duplication in there which could be trimmed, but apart from that's it's a whole lot clearer. 

I'd also like to see ultra-minimal statblocks for common critters too, just so I don't have to crack open the MM I/II/III/FF just to pull up an AC and to hit bonus.

Taking the already posted example, how about:

Orc (MM 203) CR1/2
HD 1(5hp) AC 13/13 spd 30' Init +0 Ml: +4  falchion 2d4+4/18-  Ms:- F+3 R+0 W-2 
STR+3 INT-1 WIS-1 CHA-3 Listen+1 Spot+1

Give me that in the game for 'basic' critters too instead of just name, HP and page reference, and I'll be over the moon. Later references to the same creature would just be a simple 

Orc (x3, hp 5/4/5), see A3

Basically, the fewer books around me and page turning I need to do in game, the better.

I realise that there might be "legal" reasons as to why this isn't always possible, but surely if the monster is in the SRD it could be done.......


----------



## rowport (Jul 15, 2005)

I love the new stat blocks.  I have run my characters with the earlier stat block format, but switched over to the new one, and find it *much* easier to use, especially the details I would consistently forget to apply, like declaring my Dodge bonus (easy to remember next to AC) or Damage Reduction (again, easy to remember next to hit points).

The real litmus test was passed with the 'casual player' in our group this past weekend; he made a habit of asking me to explain his character's abilities, stats, etc. until I re-formatted his sheet with the next stat block style.  Other than a legitimate question about whether sneak attack damage doubles on a critical hit, he had *no questions*!  WOW!  Woo-hoo!


----------



## Zenodotus of Ephesus (Jul 15, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Well, like it or not, it is the new format. Personally, I like it quite a bit. In case anyone's interested, here's my new WotC stat block blank, which is what I'll be using when statting out new NPCs. While I'm at it, if anyone notices any problems with it, feel free to post.
> [/left]




Unless I am mistaken, by your putting it in quotes, one cannot quote you and get it with the coding already in place.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 15, 2005)

Zenodotus of Ephesus said:
			
		

> Unless I am mistaken, by your putting it in quotes, one cannot quote you and get it with the coding already in place.




Good point. Fixed.


----------



## Zenodotus of Ephesus (Jul 15, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Good point. Fixed.




Thanks, Whisperdeedee-Footeleedoo!


----------



## dagger (Jul 16, 2005)

Is there any NPC design software that has an option for the new statblock yet?


----------



## Raging Epistaxis (Jul 16, 2005)

dagger said:
			
		

> Is there any NPC design software that has an option for the new statblock yet?



If you use a Mac, CrystalBall will within the next few weeks.

A re-write is in progress, and a PC version should be available before too long.

R E


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 16, 2005)

greywulf said:
			
		

> Orc (MM 203) CR1/2
> HD 1(5hp) AC 13/13 spd 30' Init +0 Ml: +4  falchion 2d4+4/18-  Ms:- F+3 R+0 W-2
> STR+3 INT-1 WIS-1 CHA-3 Listen+1 Spot+1



Orcs are too simple an example. I'd go with:
Orc (CR 1/2) CE Medium Humanoid (Orc)
(Init) (spd) (space/reach)
HD 1 hp 5 AC 13/13 (concealment) F+3 R+0 W-2  (SR DR ER)
M: +4  falchion 2d4+4/18-  R:- (add special attacks here)
STR+3 INT-1 WIS-1 CHA-3 Listen+1 Spot+1
(Important Feats and other abilities)

Note I dropped Init, spd and space/reach because they are all default (+0, 30 ft, 5 ft/5 ft).
M for melee and R for ranged is easier to discern than Ml and Ms.


> I realise that there might be "legal" reasons as to why this isn't always possible, but surely if the monster is in the SRD it could be done.......



D20 logo explicitly prevents referring to page numbers in WotC books. That's why I dropped the MM 203.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 16, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, speaking just for myself...
> 
> Nobody has yet made such a program available that fits my two required parameters:
> 
> ...




The first thing I do when I download, borrow, or otherwise try out some kind of "generation program" is I try to break it.  Usually this involves giving class levels to a monster.  Then, I reverse-engineer the statblock it spits out to see where it went wrong.  For example, Etools keeps forgetting to give a troll cleric its natural armour bonus.

I keep track of how long it takes me to find an error, and use that as a kind of rating system.  Again, for Etools, it was about 20 seconds.  If I can find a problem in 20 seconds, how many errors should I expect to find in several hours of use?  How much will this affect my game in the long run?


----------



## greywulf (Jul 16, 2005)

jmucchiello, thanks for the input on the mini-statblock. Your changes work for me.

Ideally, the mini blocks shouldn't go over three or four lines so they don't detract from the text. I don't think that would be too difficult for the type of critters these mini blocks would be used for; anything more and the creature deserves a full entry anyway, by my thinking.


----------



## Argonel (Jul 16, 2005)

Overall I like the new stat block and for published adventures it seems to work very nicely.  however I would really like to see the armor class and hitpoints broken out the same way they were in the old stat block.  That would make it a lot easier to make adjustments or advance the NPC/monster to make it a more appropriate challenge for my group.  It alos makes it a lot easier to roll my own HP instead of going with the average hitpoints.  I think it would also make the proofreading easier which will reduce the number of people complaining.


----------



## Vascant (Jul 16, 2005)

dagger said:
			
		

> Is there any NPC design software that has an option for the new statblock yet?





NPC Designer at www.rpgattitude.com, 6 days after the format was shown in Dungeon we had it finished


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 16, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yup -it's nice to have the flatfooted & (especially) touch ACs, but you don't need to know how those were arrived at.  Even in the Monster Manual it seems like for most creatures everything gets rolled into an abstract "Natural Armour Bonus" that in many cases can't bear much relation to the creature's actual natural armour.




I'd like a standardized superscript entry block for armour classes.  So if your armour class consists of an armour bonus, a shield bonus, a natural armour bonus and a deflection bonus, you'll see a little superscript [ASND] after the AC listing.  Now, it won't break down the values, but it will indicate at a glance whether a new bonus from a spell or effect will have stacking issues.  So if someone casts Shield of Faith on this particular character, you instantly know that you should check to see where the existing deflection bonus is coming from, and figure out its value (likely in the possessions section) to see if Shield of Faith will overlap.  If the character doesn't have a [D] in the armour class line, you know you don't have to sift through the statblock to see whether there's a deflection bonus already present.

The same could be done for attack bonuses.  It would add a lot of useful information without taking up much space at all.

[edit]
Oh, also, I just want to add that I think that sorcerers and other spontaneous metamagic users should get their metamagic feats put into "Combat Options", along with a little tag that says how many levels you increase the spell slot.  Eg: Still Spell (+1), Maximize Spell (+3), since these things will be relevent during battles, not during the preparation of the statblock, the way it is with casters who prepare their spells.


----------

