|
Hi guys,
Erik asks in the latest Dungeon what we all think of the new stat block format. After taking a month to get through the culture shock, here's my take on it.
WHAT I LIKE:
Alignment at the top! Thanks! It's more likely to affect npc behaviour than being buried in a stat block.
Calling out effects of feats, spells, and class abilities (like frequency of uses and brief bonuses) in short hand helps us remember the rules - thanks.
Languages being called out is great too.
DCs and chances to hit with spells - thanks.
WHAT I DON'T LIKE:
Combat gear in the middle of the stat block being split up from possessions - not necessary, and confusing. Oh yeah, and keep possessions at the very bottom. If you put special ability paragraphs afterwards it makes the possessions hard to refer to, both as possessions and as treasure after the dust settles.
WHAT I MISS:
The icons for traps, monsters, and npcs really call attention to them out of blocks and blocks of text - any chance of bringing them back?
A fiddly little thing - why can't you list 2d8 HD instead of 1HD? It makes advancing creatures on the fly much easier.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE:
List the (ACP -x) next to armor in the possessions, so DMs can work out skills on the fly.
Use MW instead of mwk for masterwork items and save some space for the magazine!
You are putting a separate typed line for multiple attack options - I don't think it's horribly necessary with the rest of the stat block spaced out - treat yourself to one condensed paragraph.
Put SR & DR on the same line as saves, prior to the saves themselves.
I notice that your abilities line is always just too long to be put on one line. Why not get rid of the word "Abilities" and bold up Str, Dex, etc.? You don't put "Save", but we know what Fort, Ref, and Will are, as an example.
SUMMARY:
Overall, I'm trying to adjust to the new skill blocks. I'm enjoying reading them in Dungeon, and I'll likely switch to using them in a month or two -- I'm still wrapping my brain around that large gold brick.
Thanks for being open to input and keeping our opinions in mind!
|
WHAT I DON'T LIKE:
Combat gear in the middle of the stat block being split up from possessions - not necessary, and confusing. Oh yeah, and keep possessions at the very bottom. If you put special ability paragraphs afterwards it makes the possessions hard to refer to, both as possessions and as treasure after the dust settles.
In fact, I think this is one of the greatest advantages of the new stat block. Everything related to combat where it has to be...
You are putting a separate typed line for multiple attack options - I don't think it's horribly necessary with the rest of the stat block spaced out - treat yourself to one condensed paragraph.
I think it helps if you have melee and ranged separated. Full attack is not needed anymore. A lot easier for me during fights to get the values I need!
Put SR & DR on the same line as saves, prior to the saves themselves.
YES!!! That would be even better! Good idea.
I notice that your abilities line is always just too long to be put on one line. Why not get rid of the word "Abilities" and bold up Str, Dex, etc.? You don't put "Save", but we know what Fort, Ref, and Will are, as an example.
Fine with me. Would safe a lot of space in a whole issue, wouldn't it!?
Overall I am very pleased with the new format! It makes things speedier and a lot more lucid.
I've actually taken such a liking to the new stat blocks that I've built myself a character sheet using them. Here's a sample:
Dude_01
Male Human Fighter 1 (________/1000 XP)
CN Medium humanoid (human)
Str 15, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 10
Action Points 5
Init -1, Senses Listen +1, Spot +1
Languages Common, Terran
AC 17 (-1 Dex, +6 Armor, +2 Shield), touch -8
Protection (60 lbs.) Splint Mail (45 lbs.), Heavy Steel Shield (15 lbs.)
hp 12 (1d10+2; 2 HD)
Fort +4, Ref -1, Will +1
Speed 20 ft./x3 in heavy armor (30 ft./x4 normally)
Melee battleaxe +4 (1d8+2/x3 s)
Ranged sling +0 {Range: 50 ft./x5} (1d4+2 b)
Ammunition (5 lbs.) 10 bolts
Weaponry (6 lbs.) battleaxe (6 lbs.), sling
Base Atk +1; Grp +3
Atk Options Cleave, Power Attack
Str 15, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 10 (This line normally only appears as the top of the second page if one is necessary)
Proficiencies All Simple, All Martial; All Armor, All Shields
Feats Cleave {bonus, Fighter}, Power Attack {bonus, Human}, Weapon Focus (battleaxe)
Unusable Skills Decipher Script, Disable Device, Handle Animal, Knowledge, Open Lock, Profession, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language (other than listed), Spellcraft, Tumble, Use Magic Device
Skills (acp -9)
~ Balance -10 (acp)
~ Climb -3 (4 c, acp)
~ Craft (basketweaving) +5 (4 c)
~ Escape Artist -10 (acp)
~ Hide -10 (acp)
~ Intimidate +4 (4 c)
~ Jump -13 (-6 speed, acp)
~ Move Silently -10 (acp)
~ Swim -12 (4 c, double acp)
Clothes explorer's outfit (8 lbs.)
Gear {66/133/200 load limits} (85.5 lbs; Medium Load) protection, ammunition, and weaponry (71 lbs.) plus backpack (2 lbs.), bedroll (5 lbs.), belt pouch (1/2 lb.), flint and steel, 2 trail rations (2 lbs.), 1 torch (1 lb.), waterskin (4 lbs.), 3 gp, 7 sp, 9 cp
---------------------
Temporary stuff (like damage) is recorded on 3' x 5' notecards. A new sheet is printed out every level.
Comments?
I've actually taken such a liking to the new stat blocks that I've built myself a character sheet using them. Here's a sample:
*snip*
hp 12 (1d10+2; 2 HD)
Color me stupid, but how does 1d10+2 equal 2 hit dice?
Color me stupid, but how does 1d10+2 equal 2 hit dice?
Right you are, serves me for posting at 3 in the morning.
I don't like the new format. It takes up too much room and is too difficult to write up quickly. Abilities at the bottom? Not a good idea because so many calculations for the stats are based on the abilities.
I disagree with farewell2king, I think that the new stat block in much better. True, it will take a little bit more getting used to, but it does seperate the relevent information into nice little blocks. And, it looks nicer, which is always good for a magazine.
But, mainly, I just find that it is nice and streamlined with the right information in the right place.
However, I do conceide the point about abilities being at the bottom. The abilities should be more noticable.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
My only suggestion with the new stat block - after having seen them for a few issues now, as well as having worked with them - would be to print them in a slightly smaller font. There's two reasons. First, they'll stand out from the normal text a tiny bit more if the font is just one pitch size smaller. Second, they are most definitely larger than the old style, and using the smaller pitch will help save some space.
Overall, I like them. I find them much easier to read, and more important I find it's much easier to find the info I'm looking for. That's key - at least for me. With the old stat blocks, I had a hell of a time finding some information. I've never had trouble locating the same sort of info in the new blocks, though.
*shrug* To each their own, I guess.
My only suggestion with the new stat block - ... - would be to print them in a slightly smaller font. There's two reasons. First, they'll stand out from the normal text a tiny bit more if the font is just one pitch size smaller. Second, they are most definitely larger than the old style, and using the smaller pitch will help save some space.
I'm with you. I like the layout (though I'll have to admit that I haven't DM'd with either format so I don't really have a "working with it" opinion.) It is, however, a bit large overall so a slightly smaller font would do nicely. Now if I could just find a downloadable blank new stat block I'd put to use that much sooner.
- Chris Shadowens
I don't really like 'em. I think they're too long, unnecessarily break stuff out into separate categories (combat gear vs. non-combat ... do you repeat the combat gear in the non-combat section? why not just use one line and list the combat stuff first?). Do I really need what languages the creature speaks at the top? I don't like how it doesn't differentiate between attack and full attack for melee & ranged. It unnecessarily breaks out into separate categories stuff that was combined earlier (base attack/grapple becomes base attack, grapple ... space/reach becomes space, reach). The highest-level spells at the top is wacky (I understand the reason for it, but is it that hard to look at the bottom of the list?). Feats and skills on different lines? BAH! :)
IMO a stat block should be set up to be the most efficient use of space and time in a combat situation because that's where the game is running the slowest and any delays are critical; in a roleplaying situation it's okay if I take an extra few seconds to look up a non-combat ability in a later part of the stat block. If I'm running a roleplaying encounter I probably have to look up the character's motivations and stuff anyway, I don't need noncombat-critical info up front. Heck, the creature's hit points are on the NINTH line of the stat block (perhaps sixth or even fifth if the stat block doesn't have the gender/race/class/level, source, aura, and languages lines). HMPH!
But I just do what I'm told. :)
I think the length are one of its strengths. The old block was so cramed together it could be hard to locate important info; the new block is much easier.
I understand the room issue, so I would agree with using a slightly smaller font. The line by line needs to be kept for ease of use, though.
A good example of an encounter to benefit from the big stat block was the Necrogith soulknife guys in the underwater adventure. They had so much going on they needed clarity. The old stat block would have been a mess.
I've used them, and I must say that I love them.
I heard that WotC is using this format in the MMIV this summer! I can't wait! *Puts crystals in time machine and prays it will work.*
Half-a-cookie for anyone who knows where that reference is from. It's pretty obvious...
personaly I think the new stat blocks are fine as that STAT blocks...
I do not think that WotC should try to sue them as the format for monsters in Monster books such as MM4, because they do not serve the same function (for instance the new statblock fails to provide any information about how a creature AC got to where it is, it simply lists the ac and then touch and flat footed ac's)
Now I could see the MM4 using the new statblock in the example creatures, and would be more then fine with it, but the monster format itself should remain unchanged IMO.
i'm just used to the "classic 3E" stat blocks. i've spent so many hours working on the creature catalog, that changing to a new style would be a serious pain in the rear. ;)
if i have to do it to get an article printed, i can live with that, but personally i prefer the old style for familiarity if for no other reason.
|
|
I like the new DMGII stat block format. Took some getting used to, the only way I "switched on" to it was to build an encounter using it. When running SCAP Zenith Trajectory I got a postive for a wandering monster when the PCs where heading to Crazy Jared's Hut. I got the 3d6 orcs result, and I decided to build a warband encounter between sessions using my old Chainmail orc miniatures and "old" stlye stat blocks for the orcs from Sons of Gruumsh (which was made much easier by getting the deatils into plain text using my scanner's OCR).
It took a while but once done you know where to look and adapt to the new format. With the font size small enough, and using two columns in Word, I fitted the entire encounter (with about five different types of orcs) onto one side of A4 paper. I know America uses a different identification system for paper sizes, I just don't know what it is or what the equivalent of A4 is :).
I actually did the same thing for Return to the Keep on the Borderlands when The Sunless Citadel and DUNGEON #83 came out for 3.0, got me used to the "new" stat block format back then as well. As an aside where it fell apart was the EL's after true conversion, the adventure was no longer 1st to 3rd level, more like 1st to 7th.
However I too miss the old Adventure.ttf symbols, although Paizo did seem to start using a sword symbol for magic items that was not in the font I had and I never seemed to be able to find it on the internet. I just include the NPC helmet symbol or dragon's head monster symbol in front of the name of the creature in the new stat block format. I thus "keep it real" and "old skool" :) Clearly I am "down wid tha kids" or somesuch :)
personaly I think the new stat blocks are fine as that STAT blocks...
I do not think that WotC should try to sue them as the format for monsters in Monster books such as MM4, because they do not serve the same function (for instance the new statblock fails to provide any information about how a creature AC got to where it is, it simply lists the ac and then touch and flat footed ac's)
Good point.
Creative Director
|
Check out how we're presenting new monsters in Dungeon starting with issue #130 if you want a sort-of sneak peak as to where the new MM4 stat blocks are headed.
Making adventure stat blocks and New Monster stat blocks work the same way is not only an immense time saver, but it seems to me to just make more sense. Why learn 2 stat blocks when 1 will do?
I like the new stat block but i think they need a bit of time to get where they should be...some fine tuning...
Isran
At this juncture, I've just accepted the fact that no stat block in 3e is ever going to be satisfactory because detail is the nature of the beast. 3e is a much more tactical system than 2e or 1e ever was. It's not that it's more complicated (in a sense the rules are simpler and more unified), it's that 3e is much more precise than previous editions ever pretended to be. This requires a lot more information to be listed about npcs and monsters than was previously necessary. I love the way the 3e system has turned out and I think it is a marked improvement. But a 3e stat block is never going to be concise because such a block would leave out necessary information, of which there is really a lot.
Personally, I think the new stat block is roughly comparable to the old one in functionality. It added some nice improvements (like languages) but "fixed" a number of problems that I thought were non-existant (I never had so much difficulty finding Spot and Listen that I needed them listed twice). Basically, overall, the new stat block is not an improvement because the improvements don't outweigh the deficiencies. This creates a problem for me because it requires me to get used to a new format. It would be worthwhile if the new stat block were vastly superior, but the difference is not appreciable.
That's just my opinion.
|
Check out how we're presenting new monsters in Dungeon starting with issue #130 if you want a sort-of sneak peak as to where the new MM4 stat blocks are headed.
Making adventure stat blocks and New Monster stat blocks work the same way is not only an immense time saver, but it seems to me to just make more sense. Why learn 2 stat blocks when 1 will do?
Im posting part of a discussion I joined on the wizards forums in the hopes that it might get better responce here...
In the hopes that developers read this thread im gonna ask for a few useful pieces of information that i would like to see included in the new statblock.Priority: 2 statblocks.. i would like every monster to come with two statblocks; the first including all information needed to create the monster. this includes a list of ability score modifiers (not ability scores), Creature Improvement by type (Base HD, Attack Bonus, Saves, skill points), and other advancement details, as well as location/organisation details. it would be short but it would put everything you need to create a non-standard version of the creature at your fingertips.
The second stat block would then be an NPC statblock detailing the "A" typical version of that creature. for quick drop and play statistics. This makes the overall appearance of a monster entry similar to a Prestige Class entry and enforces the ease of use for DMs who like quick monsters ready made and for those who like to Design their own.
Details: Ability score breakdown. Sometimes its really hard to work out just what plus to strength a a creature has. if it could be layed out similar to the racial modifiers of a race it would make adding the creature to the standard, non-elite and elite arrays so much quicker. this can only help to making creatures unique and prevent players from knowing just what to expect from the standard orc.
As a DM I'd prefer to find all the information for creating unique opponents for my players in the same place rather than having 4 or 5 bookmarks/books and flicking back and forth from each.
A layout like this...
Name
Size, Type, Sub-type
Hit Dice, Bonus Hit points
Alignment
Abilities (STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA) -modifiers
Speed, Mode
Natural Armor
BAB -good/average/poor
Natural Attacks
Saving Throws (Fortitude, Reflex, Willpower ) -good/poor
Special Attacks
Special Qualities
# Feats
Skill points per HD, Favored Skills
CR, Level Adjustment, Advancement
Environment
Treasure
Is all you need to make a monster. everything else (like equipment, average HPs, AC, Initiative, is needless fluff that only applies to specific NPCs and will change from monster to monster.
Check out how we're presenting new monsters in Dungeon starting with issue #130 if you want a sort-of sneak peak as to where the new MM4 stat blocks are headed.
Making adventure stat blocks and New Monster stat blocks work the same way is not only an immense time saver, but it seems to me to just make more sense. Why learn 2 stat blocks when 1 will do?
I'm gonna give this baby a bump...
I've heard grumblings (over on the WotC boards) that Complete Psionic uses the new stat block format - except it doesn't include lines for Advancement or Treasure, nor does it include an AC break down. I haven't seen the book; I was wondering if anybody who has seen it has a comment.
I like the new stat block format - but how can you have a monster stat block without an "advancement" entry? How can you not mention what sort of treasure the critter normally has? I don't normally care about the AC breakdown - I can typically reverse engineer them fairly quick - but I know plenty of other folks who like to have that information right at their finger tips.
Was it an oversight from WotC, or can we expect this in MM4 too?
-- John
I've heard grumblings (over on the WotC boards) that Complete Psionic uses the new stat block format - except it doesn't include lines for Advancement or Treasure, nor does it include an AC break down. I haven't seen the book; I was wondering if anybody who has seen it has a comment.
I like the new stat block format - but how can you have a monster stat block without an "advancement" entry? How can you not mention what sort of treasure the critter normally has? I don't normally care about the AC breakdown - I can typically reverse engineer them fairly quick - but I know plenty of other folks who like to have that information right at their finger tips.
Was it an oversight from WotC, or can we expect this in MM4 too?
-- John
I haven't seen the book in question, but perhaps the treasure entry was obmitted because they all granted "standard" treasure, much like the space/reach line is often obmitted. As for the advancement line... I don't know. But it's not one I have really referenced all that often, and many times I completely ignore it (giving class levels before HD have maxed out, or giving more than max HD. I suppose it would be nice to know at which point a particular monster moves from Large to Huge, but perhaps WotC has decided that it really isn't an issue. If you want your monster to be Gargantuan with 5 HD... go for it. (Although the MM does list minimums I believe, but I'm feeling too lazy to go over and look)
I like the new stat block format for use in adventures. (Except that it would be very nice to have the ACs broken down so it's easy to recalculate when the NPC Cleric casts "Protection from Good" or similar spells.) The new format is easier to read, and therefore quicker to use in-game. (I could never find the save modifiers in the old format.)
However, books like the MMIV have a different intended usage from published adventures - they're supposed to provide the DM with tools. That being the case, things that can be omitted in an adventure (AC breakdown, HD breakdown, LA, Environment, Advancement...) must be present in the monster write-up. Making the format easier to read and easier to use as-is is all well and good, but it's not good enough if the price of that is reducing the utility of the monsters to DMs who tinker.
My understanding is that the new monster format includes an entry for typical treasure that the creature will have. This is a good thing. However, it has been done at the cost of removing the old "Double Standard" (or whatever) entry. Which means that in a random encounter every creature of the type will have almost exactly the same treasure, which doesn't seem very good.
All in all, I think Wizards have made a mis-step here. Hopefully, they can realise their error and put it right before MMIV is released. (I think it's too late for Fiendish Codex I, which is tragic as I was expecting great things of that book.)
I haven't seen the book in question, but perhaps the treasure entry was obmitted because they all granted "standard" treasure, much like the space/reach line is often obmitted. As for the advancement line... I don't know. But it's not one I have really referenced all that often, and many times I completely ignore it (giving class levels before HD have maxed out, or giving more than max HD. I suppose it would be nice to know at which point a particular monster moves from Large to Huge, but perhaps WotC has decided that it really isn't an issue. If you want your monster to be Gargantuan with 5 HD... go for it. (Although the MM does list minimums I believe, but I'm feeling too lazy to go over and look)
Sure. I don't think I've ever used the random treasure stuff in 3.x; the advancement line is nice to know whether a critter advances by hit die, or if it can take class levels. It's also nice to know when it changes size. The AC breakdown is nice to have, but it usually isn't difficult to reverse engineer it.
All that said, those things appear in the stat blocks in Dungeon; so that's why I was asking - to see if any of the good folks here have an idea why those things aren't in the stat blocks for Complete Psionic.
|
Creative Director
|
There's certainly going to be one or two books during the stat block transition where things aren't quite perfect. But I can assure you that information like Treasure and Advancement haven't gone away in any of the unreleased WotC books I've seen. They may have moved out of the actual stat block to reappear as more detailed descriptive sections in the monster's description, but they're still there.
I haven't seen Complete Psionic yet, but my guess is that this information was simply moved from the stat block to the creature's body text. If it IS completely missing, it's likely an error that hasn't been repeated in prodcuts after this book, as far as I can tell (based on what I've seen of Monster Manual IV and Fiendish Codex I.)
Yeah, based on further comments on the thread over on WotC's boards, it sounds like the treasure information has certainly migrated to the text section. Those with the book haven't said yet - one way or another - whether the other sections (organization, terrain, advancement, and LA) have also migrated there.
James - I assume you don't mind if I put a quote of your post over there?
No advancement or level adjustment, save on the templates (which use the same format as usual).
All in all, I think Wizards have made a mis-step here. Hopefully, they can realise their error and put it right before MMIV is released. (I think it's too late for Fiendish Codex I, which is tragic as I was expecting great things of that book.)
aw man, i could only hope that FC1 would use the old statblock format, but that's probably a vain hope. oh well, that won't stop me from getting it, just force me to deal with it. :P
oh well, that won't stop me from getting it, just force me to deal with it. :P
Yeah, I'll still be getting it, too. I suppose in that case, I'm not too terribly upset - the terrain is mostly pretty obvious, most of the creatures will not have their treasures to hand most of the time, and I don't allow fiends as PCs. So all that's really missing is an Advancement section. So, I guess that's not too bad.
I'm still disappointed, though. For me the most useful sections of the Draconomicon, Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness were the expanded monsters (more in the first two than the latter one), which are massive labour-savers. If there was one thing I didn't want them to mess around with, that was it.
(It's worth saying that I thoroughly enjoyed all three books, and would have gladly bought them without those chapters. But while the rest of the books were good and entertaining, it is the sample monsters that I go back to again and again.)
|
Creative Director
|
James - I assume you don't mind if I put a quote of your post over there?
Sure; go right ahead!
One of my pet peeves is knee-jerk reactions to partial information. It's best to check something out for yourself, or read an informed review, before jumping to conclusions.
Personally, I think that the new stat block works wonderfully for both adventrue stat blocks and monster book stat blocks. Having the same format between both is just common sense, as this way one needs only know how to navigate one User Interface to get the info.
One of my pet peeves is knee-jerk reactions to partial information. It's best to check something out for yourself, or read an informed review, before jumping to conclusions.
Personally, I think that the new stat block works wonderfully for both adventrue stat blocks and monster book stat blocks. Having the same format between both is just common sense, as this way one needs only know how to navigate one User Interface to get the info.
Given that I have seen neither the Complete Psionic or the latest Creature Catalogue, I will try to discuss the theory of stat-block formats, rather than the specifics.
The point about having a consistent User Interface is well made. I still recall endless Human/Computer Interfaces lectures at university on this very point. (Did you know that there's a right order and a wrong order for ATMs to return a user's card and dispense cash?) It's also true that creating good interfaces is hard, since many of the issues are not obvious.
However, being consistent doesn't necessarily mean being the same. Things like AC breakdowns are nice to have in an adventure write-up, but they're not essential and may prove distracting. All in all, I think we're probably better without them.
However, in a monster write-up, I would argue that AC breakdowns are essential. If I want to switch a creature's armour for something better, having the AC breakdown makes that much easier. Yes, I _can_ do without it, but I shouldn't have to. Prepping a game takes enough effort as it is.
Likewise, a monster write-up should list the hit dice as... snip
Edit: Actually, scratch that. It occurs to me that advancing a creature by hit dice will require cross-referencing anyway, so there's no benefit to listing the hit dice type.
Further, I would prefer Level Adjustments and Advancement options to be positioned at the end of the stat-block, and not buried in the flavour text. For the Environment, I can see going either way, but I think I would prefer it to be listed in the old format (Environment: Warm Hills, or whatever), so I can see at a glance where creatures fit. Of course, that information must all be there.
Now, I'm not in the camp that says Wizards should ditch the new stat-block format. Nor am I going to let that one thing affect my purchasing of Complete Psionic or Fiendish Codex I. However, it _will_ impact my decision whether to buy MMIV or not. When the time comes, I will look at the format used in that book, and if it is good enough I will buy. If not, I won't.
James - I assume you don't mind if I put a quote of your post over there?Sure; go right ahead!
Thanks.
One of my pet peeves is knee-jerk reactions to partial information. It's best to check something out for yourself, or read an informed review, before jumping to conclusions.
I generally agree, and it's one of the reasons I came here to discuss it, because I know the Paizo folks are used to the stat blocks by now, and I know you guys sometimes get a look at a WotC book before the rest of us.
Personally, I think that the new stat block works wonderfully for both adventrue stat blocks and monster book stat blocks. Having the same format between both is just common sense, as this way one needs only know how to navigate one User Interface to get the info.
I like the new stat block. I find it far easier to find information when I'm running a game. And it makes complete sense to have the same format for NPCs and monsters rather than two formats.
I'm guessing WotC is going to have to release the missing information in an errata file for Complete Psionic. Some of the missing informtion - such as LA and advancement - just seems too important. From what I've been reading, the info isn't in the text, either.
Hopefully, these kinks in the system are worked out before they publish a book I'm interested in. :D
I don't like the new stat block:
1) It's confusing and non-traditional.
2) It has no Organization entry
3) It has no Level Adjustment entry
4) It has no Advancement Line entry
5) It has no Environment entry
And to think all of Monster Manual 4 is going to look like thos. BLech!
6) Random treasure line was good for coming up with stuff on the fly, not there anymore
7) It has no AC breakdown
|
Creative Director
|
And to think all of Monster Manual 4 is going to look like those. BLech!
Again... no, it won't. It sounds like the Complete Psionic stat blocks, being one of the first ones they used for the new monster stat blocks, got through with a few errors. I've seen the raw text for MM4 and Fiendish Codex, and all the information you're missing is there. Some of the info has been turned into more descriptive text, others have been returned to the stat block itself. Again... please wait until you actually SEE the MM4 or read an informed review before panicking.
And to think all of Monster Manual 4 is going to look like those. BLech!Again... no, it won't. It sounds like the Complete Psionic stat blocks, being one of the first ones they used for the new monster stat blocks, got through with a few errors. I've seen the raw text for MM4 and Fiendish Codex, and all the information you're missing is there. Some of the info has been turned into more descriptive text, others have been returned to the stat block itself. Again... please wait until you actually SEE the MM4 or read an informed review before panicking.
Thank you for informing me of this. I was hoping the ones in Complete Psionic were just that, beta versions of the original. Now that I've read your statements, I feel a lot better about Monster Manual 4 and am greatly looking forward to it.
James,
Is the new kopru entry in the recently-released Stormwrack web enhancement indicative of the FC/MMIV format?
It can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060306a
Thanks!
For NPCs, I love it. It highlights the important stuff, and putting senses and languages, the skills the PCs are most likely to deal with, up top just makes sense.
For monsters, not so much. I worry about the fact that the monsters in complete psionic were all on the new stat block. A monster's stat block should be the basis upon which NPCs are made. The NPC block is just too all over the place for a monster writeup.