No, no, no, no, no, no, and no.
I'm very much against the new stat block format on so many levels.
I don't have time to elaborate at the moment, but I'll just say this:
There is. Nothing. Wrong. With the old format.
New Monster Stat Block?
Since Complete Psionic (and maybe earlier books), the new stat block has replaced old monster entry format. The trend will probably continue for new D&D monster entries (e.g. MM4).
See http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060707a
Personally, I'm for the new format, especially the expanded Dragon/Dungeon version which adds the following...
- AC breakdown after flatfoot AC
- Environment, Organization, Treasure, Advancement after Skills
What do you people think?
- 716 reads
Mon, 2006-07-10 16:22
#3
New Monster Stat Block?
Mon, 2006-07-10 17:32
#4
New Monster Stat Block?
Ok - could someone explain what's wrong with it?
Mon, 2006-07-10 17:48
#5
New Monster Stat Block?
Ok - could someone explain what's wrong with it?
There's nothing wrong with the new stat block, just as there is nothing wrong with the old stat block. We just don't see the need to change is all. I think that sums it up quite nicely... 
Personally, this new stat block could safely be considered "4th edition." Quite sad, really... *sighs*
Mon, 2006-07-10 20:59
#6
New Monster Stat Block?
For one thing, I think the new stat block is better organized for use, as explained in the linked article. People will get used to it, now that the change is official. Generally, unless there's something seriously wrong with the official format/position/ruling/etc., I'd prefer to go with it. It seems like preferring the old format is just a matter of habit?
And pls vote, berks.
Personally, this new stat block could safely be considered "4th edition."
That's a bit far-fetched. It's not like they changed the monster rules or anything (like what they did for v3.0-v3.5).
Tue, 2006-07-11 11:54
#7
New Monster Stat Block?
I kinda like the new one....
Tue, 2006-07-11 15:28
#8
New Monster Stat Block?
The new stat block was an unnecessary (and IMO unfortunate) change.
It is an attempt to make the GM believe he can run the creature off-the-page, with no preparation or prior knowledge of it, which is a bad idea.
It is also an attempt to generate a higher page count without actually adding more content.
Some claim it's also an attempt to justify a new Monster Book (MM 4, apparently more of the same), though I wouldn't go that far.
The new stat block format is an update aimed at new players, who should, in theory, find it easier to understand and use (which is questionable, IMO, but beside the point). It requires experienced players to adapt, which they shouldn't have to. Had it been a part of the v3.5 update, I assume I'd have eventually accepted it, but it wasn't.
The article that Ivan linked to is ... well, to put it plainly, stupid. i honestly can't find a better expression. It tries to justify the change, and IMO fails miserably:
If you didn’t know off the top of your head that tanar’ri qualities included immunities and resistances to various forms of energy (and really, who did?), that was easy to forget.
Which is why they're summarized under the demon entry, isn't it?
Spell-like abilities - Those include some of the balor’s most important powers, but if you want to know what they are, you need to look over on the next page.
Wow, all the way to the next page. Unbearable.
When I want to know the balor’s AC, my eye roams all over that stat block before the letters “AC” finally jump out at me.
... I just don't know how to comment on this. Can it be made any clearer then "Armor Class", bolded, in a separate field?
Anyway...
The bottom line is, I really don't see a reason to adapt the new format for pw.com just because MM4 has it. Should we adapt to a new one every year, in case WotC keeps coming up with creative new ways of organizing their stat blocks?
And once again, what is wrong with the old stat block? Have there been actual complains about it? Other than James Wyatt's, quoted above?
Tue, 2006-07-11 15:49
#9
New Monster Stat Block?
I think the AC comment he made was referring to the "The Adventure Stat Block" example (the 2nd example on the page) which - come on - that one *does* have the word-blur issue - it's not bolded or on a seperate field. The first time I saw a stat block like *that* one I grabbed pen and paper and recopied it into my game notes with much annoyance as I hate writing by hand and there was no way on god's green earth I was gonna be able to remember it at the table. For the same reason my copies of the books (using the actual stat blocks not the adventure ones) have scribbles in the margins about what immunities and resistances undead, tanarri, etc have... I'm great at recalling story, people, places... but dates and specific energy immunities? I wouldn't pass a history exam or a game on memory alone, and to maintain game-pace at the table I don't want to slow things down mid combat to flip the book and check - hence, scribbles.
I assume our debate here is between the first stat block example, labeled "the format used in the D&D v.3.5 Monster Manual" - and the third example, labeled "The New Stat Block" ?
Wed, 2006-07-12 00:22
#10
New Monster Stat Block?
Personally, this new stat block could safely be considered "4th edition." Quite sad, really... *sighs*
Absolutely. A reorganisation of the same information clearly is indicative of a new edition. Damn the man!
The new stat block was an unnecessary (and IMO unfortunate) change.
An unnecessary change isn't always a bad change, though.
I think the AC comment he made was referring to the "The Adventure Stat Block" example (the 2nd example on the page) which - come on - that one *does* have the word-blur issue - it's not bolded or on a seperate field.
I hate that condensed stat block. It is only by virtue of my highly-trained ninja eyesight that I am able to find any information contained therein.
As for my opinions on the matter, I'm okay with the new stat block. I'm okay with the old stat block. There's nothing wrong with the old format, and after six years of use I'm accustomed to it. The new stat block, I find, is easy to read and get information from, though. The only thing I don't like is an apparent prediliction for automatically including an arbitrary amount of power attack into the attack information.
Wed, 2006-07-12 03:47
#11
New Monster Stat Block?
I assume our debate here is between the first stat block example, labeled "the format used in the D&D v.3.5 Monster Manual" - and the third example, labeled "The New Stat Block" ?
Yes. I wouldn't have minded if the new format was meant to replace only the blocked, "adventure" format. But having it replace the tabular monster entry is a bad, bad move.
(BTW, the difference between the oh-so-obfuscating second example "adventure" format and the brand new third example format is only in the fact that they've bolded the "AC". I don't suppose that could've been done without rearranging the whole thing...)
There's nothing wrong with the old format, and after six years of use I'm accustomed to it.
My point exactly.
The only thing I don't like is an apparent prediliction for automatically including an arbitrary amount of power attack into the attack information.
Truth be told, some of the the old format entries had this done as well (see MM 3).
Thu, 2006-07-13 03:28
#12
New Monster Stat Block?
It's not that the old monster entry has anything wrong. But I think the new one is an improvement. For one thing, the new stat block organizes info better with respect to usage. The organization of the old entry format seems somewhat random/arbitrary.
Senses, languages, interaction - information relevant to pre-combat interactions
--------------------
DR, SR, save, hp, AC - information needed when something is done to the creature
--------------------
Speed, melee, SLA, attack options - actions available during the creature's turn
-------------------
Other info - abilities, etc.
-------------------
Descriptions of abilities
Senses/pre-combat information are placed together, hp/DR as well, etc. We have gotten used to looking up and down the old monster entry (SQ-Skills, HD-SQ), so it doesn't seem so much of a problem. But for complex (usually high CR) monsters especially those that DM seldom use, it's easy to overlook certain aspects when using the old entry format. For example, one thing I always overlook when using multiple monsters out of the book (random encounters, or BBEG's minions) is Dodge. If Dodge is placed right beside AC, I'm sure I won't miss it.
My initial grip with the new stat block when I saw it in DMG2 was the lack of AC breakdown. Since same type bonus don't stack, how much AC does it gain if the creature casts barkskin or shield of faith? But with that included, it's actually better organized.
Thu, 2006-07-13 10:40
#13
New Monster Stat Block?
It's not that the old monster entry has anything wrong. But I think the new one is an improvement. For one thing, the new stat block organizes info better with respect to usage. The organization of the old entry format seems somewhat random/arbitrary.
The improvement, IMHO, is minor, insufficient to justify the change after 6 years of using the old format.
The organization of the old format is somewhat arbitrary, but it's what we're all used to by now. Name one DM (other than James Wyatt) that had such a huge problem running creatures because of the entry format? If someone couldn't remember a balor's spell-like abilities, it wasn't because he had to, oh my, turn the page, it's because he's a lazy DM.
The organization of the new format (not just the stat block, the accompanying text as well) can be summed up as "more text, less content." For example, the sample encounter part - what's the point of that? Why waste a paragraph advising the DM that he might want to consider throwing two orcs at the PCs instead of just one? Because it ups the word/page count, and who cares if it's pointless, anyway.
But for complex (usually high CR) monsters especially those that DM seldom use, it's easy to overlook certain aspects when using the old entry format.
It's easy if you're not prepared. The new format seems to imply that the monsters can be ran as soon as you crack open the book, which is just wrong; no entry format guarantees that, and no format should suggest it does.
Thu, 2006-07-13 10:54
#14
New Monster Stat Block?
Oh, and BTW, just to illustrate the on-off consistency at WotC:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ask
When Demogorgon first appeared (in the original 1st Edition Monster Manual), he had baboon heads. At the time Book of Vile Darkness was being written, folks decided that baboon heads were silly, and so they were changed to hyena heads (hyenas being much cooler than baboons at the time).
Well, with the Miniatures Handbook and the Aspect of Demogorgon miniature (in the Archfiends set), we decided to return to Demogorgon's roots and bring back the baboon heads (baboons being much cooler than hyenas at the time).
If most of you think that the new format is much cooler at this time, go right ahead and change the Codex. I won't have anything to do with it, though.
Thu, 2006-07-13 14:27
#15
New Monster Stat Block?
The new stat blocks are missing things like the break down of hit points that the old one had, which I'd really want to know to see if the stats are correct, especially if it's multi-class. It's also lacking things like explaining why does a creature like Bluespawn Godslayers do an extra 2d6 of lightning damage, which is important because we need to know does this apply to any weapon it uses, what about non-metal weapons or ranged weapons, is it a supernatural or extraordinary ability.
They have to really fix up the new stat block format, before I get satisfied with it's use.
Thu, 2006-07-13 22:06
#16
New Monster Stat Block?
Honestly, I REALLY dislike the new statblock. I far prefer the MM1-style block.
I like having the crunchy bits up top with full breakdowns of abilities. I dislike long blocks of text that basically state the obvious. If something needs mechanical explanation, like say... special qualities, great, go ahead and clarify it.
The new statblock does nothing for me there.
I would personally prefer keeping BOTH statblocks, since the material needed to generate the blocks is going to be the same, but much of it's reorganized, or providing the full breakdowns that are missing from the current MM4/Complete Psi stat-block style so that the material the original block style provides is shown, including the breakdowns of HP, ACs, DR, resistances, attack bonuses, and other assorted abilities that show up when advancing monsters by things other than racial HD alone...
(I'd also not mind a setting that prevents display of sample encounters and shortens the monster entry sections appropriately in terms of page space.
Sun, 2006-09-24 04:41
#17
New Monster Stat Block?
I've tried experimenting with the new stat block when I decided to submit the article on fox spirits. The new format is supposed to be about access of information, in some order of importance...
Though the one thing to make mine more consistent with the new format is to have the line hp 27 (6d6+6) say hp 27 (6 HD) or have both the HD and breakdown given with hp 27 (6 HD; 6d6+6).
Sun, 2006-09-24 05:03
#18
New Monster Stat Block?
I love the new stat blocks. Everything is clear and I (allmost) never forget a special attack or quality of a foe. 
Sun, 2006-09-24 06:07
#19
New Monster Stat Block?
First glance at least, it just seems clearer to read than the old one.
Mon, 2006-09-25 06:20
#20
New Monster Stat Block?
The only thing I don't like about the new stat block is that it doesn't list environment.
Mon, 2006-09-25 13:53
#21
New Monster Stat Block?
The only thing I don't like about the new stat block is that it doesn't list environment.
That shows up later in the creature's description, in the Ecology section. Although, yes, it might be inconvenient not to have it in the stat block.
Fri, 2006-10-20 09:45
#22
New Monster Stat Block?
I'm not wild about the stat block because I'm not used to it, therefore it is still awkward. I'll probably get over it.
However, I love the way they've taken to doing the rest of the write up. It seems to lead to fuller and richer information on monsters, very much some of the nicer monster descriptions from 2E. Ecology entries are good.
Mon, 2006-10-23 07:45
#23
New Monster Stat Block?
I've not had the opportunity to use the new stat block, however, I've never liked the old stat block, as I've found that it buries the most important information about the creature (ability scores, DR, SR, ER, SPLA, and full breakdowns showing where the various numbers come from). I wound up creating my own stat format, which I use when creating homebrews and into which I often copy monsters prior to use.
Nemui,
I find that things often move awful fast at the table, and things typically don't go according to plan. As such, I find that I often forget about an important ability or modifier for a round or two unless it's slapping me in the face.
After looking at the 4th monster manual, I have to agree that the new entry format seems to be a way for them to up pagecount without adding much substance. I've never found myself looking at a monster entry and thinking, wow, this is great, but what I really need before I can use this is 2 pages of descriptive text and an encounter map that totally doesn't fit my campain and that, hey, all my players know about anyway.
Sat, 2006-10-28 08:11
#24
New Monster Stat Block?
I don´t buy any books anyway.
Tue, 2006-12-19 14:57
#25
New Monster Stat Block?
They'res nothing wrong with the old statblock, it's just that the new one is better.
Tue, 2007-02-20 00:41
#26
Why I voted no as well.
Here's what I dislike about the new stat block:
1) It's extremely difficult to advance or design monsters in as compared to the old block.
2) It's much more difficult to find information in-especially as related to 1), if you're trying to check and see whether a monster's or character's creation was consistent with the rules.
3) Several of the stat block entries are very unclear as to what ought to belong in them (I'm referring to things like Atk Options). In comparison, Special Attacks and Special Qualities had very little leeway in terms of what went where.
4) This might sound like a comparatively minor concern, but I think it's ugly. It takes twice as much space potentially as the old format (at least).
Sat, 2007-10-13 17:20
#27
Heaven Forbid we be "Lazy"
A prior post implied that those that find it hard to remember every detail of a particular type (like Tanari properties for instance) are Lazy. I think that comments like this are not constructive and in this case are just plain untrue. I like the new entry format because __I__ have an easier time finding pertinent information during a combat. I can use all the help I can get during a combat and I think others do too. Unlike those perfect DMs with the perfect memories, we can use the help....and NOT because we are LAZY.
Does this make me less competent than other DM's --I don't think so. However, what I do find is that it is making my job easier and allows me to get to the business of having fun which helps may players do the same.
Wed, 2007-10-17 09:48
#28
New Monster Stat Block?
::Arrggh! I already said that.:: 
:oops:
Tue, 2007-12-11 14:55
#29
Two stat blocks, two different uses
I personally do not like the new stat block for monster manual-type entries. They make it difficult to organize when validating (or advancing) a monster. Its far easier to count Feats when they are all in one place, or to see where the skill points are allocated, etc.
I also find it easier to generate new monsters (using a set of spreadsheet macros) with the old stat block.
However, the new stat block is arguably better for encounters, and could be used where example encounters were given.
Tue, 2007-12-11 15:35
#30
New Monster Stat Block?
Black Dagger: I agree with your assesment, but because writing a statblock out twice is a pain, the old one is better in most cases (unless a monster is being reprinted in an adventure)
As more and new people pick up the Codex, I think they'll be used to seeing hte new stuff, so I don't see any reason not to update. Especially if it really makes it that much easier to use a critter at the table.