Today's blog talks about Paizo's new stat block format. Check it out and let us hear your feedback!
I really enjoy the Tactics box. Morale is especially nice. It'll help me to keep every bad guy from fighting stupidly to the death.
I support Gibbon Riot's praise of the "Morale" section. Love including "Tactics" within the stat block proper rather than in the descriptive text. Overall, a big thumbs up!
Very, very cool. Clear, concise, and useful . . .what more could you want.
It does beg a question however . . . I know you guys have not yet decided how submissions will be handled, what you will be looking for, etc (understandable . . . it is a busy, busy, exciting time for you Paizones) . . but say someone was stockpiling certain creations, perhaps for future submission, would it be wise to format them accordingly?
Director of Games
|
Very, very cool. Clear, concise, and useful . . .what more could you want.
It does beg a question however . . . I know you guys have not yet decided how submissions will be handled, what you will be looking for, etc (understandable . . . it is a busy, busy, exciting time for you Paizones) . . but say someone was stockpiling certain creations, perhaps for future submission, would it be wise to format them accordingly?
Although I cannot comment directly on submissions at this time.. if you were to submit them in the future, and they were to be in the right format, that would be good. That said, you should probably wait until our writers guidelines give you a more solid example.. ahem.. if those were to come out.
Jason Bulmahn
GameMastery Brand Manager
|
The long format looks great, very clear, and the tactics section helps a lot.
The stub format could stand do be a bit longer. I know we are all opposed to paying n-times for the stats of a kobold warrior, it would be nice if in addition to the MM page number we could get AC, saves, Attack, and Damage. Just enough to run 90% of the encounters without having to reference a second source.
The Delving for Dummies format puts out too much info, and this just a bit too little.
Example of my idea:
Kobold Warriors (5) Cr 1/4
I:+1 S:+2 L:+2
Def: hp 4 AC:15(t12,f14) F:+2,R:+1,W:-1
Off: M: Spear +1(1d6-1/×3) R: Sling +3(1d3-1)
MM: 161
Or for creatures that appear a lot, such as kobold warriors (twice on this 1 page) put em on the inside of the back cover for easy reference.
I like the new format for new, unique, non-standard, and/or leader type monsters.
For a standard monster, a couple of key items (AC, HP, weapons, source, and page number) is about all I need. I really like the idea of having a quick reference chart in the back of the book that has all the ability scores (and all the rest of the stats) listed out. Back in the day, there were a number of modules written that had a quick reference chart listed on the back cover. In today's electronic age, having a downloadable quick reference chart that could be printed out would be a great idea. I definitely do not want to see a standard monster listed out 20x in a 32 page module. That is a waste. Just list it once in a chart.
I like the concept of the new WofC format, but it just takes up a lot of room. Their 225 page books feel small to me, b/c it seems like over half the book is encounter format stuff. Its too much. Now I do like the idea of the climatic final battle having a 2 page spread with all the details listed out, but not all the little encounters.
Although I cannot comment directly on submissions at this time.. if you were to submit them in the future, and they were to be in the right format, that would be good. That said, you should probably wait until our writers guidelines give you a more solid example.. ahem.. if those were to come out.Jason Bulmahn
GameMastery Brand Manager
Well get off your duffs and get 'em out. It's not like you guys are actually doing anything else worthwhile. ;)
|
Hi Jason
These appear to be a nice tweaking of the DMGII format. Well done! :)
However, let's just say a bunch of low-level kobolds doesn't really test it out terribly well. Perhaps a 13th level Wizard or a creature with several special attack abilities might give us all a better insight into your new format. Making these easy to use in play whilst taking up a minimum of page space is a tough compromise to get right.
So far so good though.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
I would add next to the speed entry all the stats relative to movement such as jump, climb, hide, move silently, tumble...... This would miror what you did for the senses
Sorry guys, I am lost. Where can I take a look at this new stat block?
daedel, el azote.
Sorry guys, I am lost. Where can I take a look at this new stat block?
I like the stat block but I would want the skills and feats separated like they are in Ptolus. For example:
Crucial Skills: Bluff +38, Concentration +30, Escape Artist +10, Hide +13, Intimidate +19, Listen +22, Move Silently +13, Search +11, Spot +22, Tumble +15.
Other Skills: Craft (alchemy) +20, Diplomacy +13, Disguise +17, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (history) +7, Knowledge (local) +20, Knowledge (nobility and royalty) +11, Survival +2, Use Rope +10.
Crucial Feats: Dodge, Heighten Spell, Maximize Spell, Mobility, Spell Penetration.
Other Feats: Alertness, Craft Wondrous Item, Magical Aptitude, Persuasive, Scribe Scroll.
The above was taken from here: Lilith of the Fallen
j.
I love this new stat block. The bold clarity of the headers is fantastic, and I love the inclusion of tactics and morale. I'm going to love using these in my games.
However, it would be nice to see this stat block for something a bit more advanced and complicated than a pesky kobold.
|
I really like this, as well- it's very clear and accessible. For creatures with complex tactics, will the tactics block accommodate the length necessary to cover the details? For example, in those encounters where details by round were historically given, will the information be truncated? I really appreciate the information on tactics (although, admittedly, it was a pain to find it sometimes), and would hate to lose any complexity.
The long format looks great, very clear, and the tactics section helps a lot.
The stub format could stand do be a bit longer. I know we are all opposed to paying n-times for the stats of a kobold warrior, it would be nice if in addition to the MM page number we could get AC, saves, Attack, and Damage. Just enough to run 90% of the encounters without having to reference a second source.
The Delving for Dummies format puts out too much info, and this just a bit too little.
Example of my idea:
Kobold Warriors (5) Cr 1/4
I:+1 S:+2 L:+2
Def: hp 4 AC:15(t12,f14) F:+2,R:+1,W:-1
Off: M: Spear +1(1d6-1/×3) R: Sling +3(1d3-1)
MM: 161Or for creatures that appear a lot, such as kobold warriors (twice on this 1 page) put em on the inside of the back cover for easy reference.
I agree 100%!! I really dislike the quick MM reference, but also I sympathize with people not wanting a full stat block reprinted and wasting valuable space. I think this is a great compromise. It'd take some finesse to handle more complex monsters, but I believe it could be done in something far shorter than a full stat block and far more convenient than a Monster Manual reference.
I like it a lot, but of course I do have suggestions/questions.
1. Add check boxes next to each spell (or spell level if a sorcerer)... I hate drawing lines through spells.
2. Put the spell DC right next to the spell level, not next to each spell.
3. Where is Taily's stat block (or none since he's just a rat... but then wouldn't having a pointer to the book and page number with the statblock be very helpful?)
My personal nitpick is that I think the "languages" text should be in the first block, as per WotC. I think this is truely where you need to know this info.
I agree 100%!! I really dislike the quick MM reference, but also I sympathize with people not wanting a full stat block reprinted and wasting valuable space. I think this is a great compromise. It'd take some finesse to handle more complex monsters, but I believe it could be done in something far shorter than a full stat block and far more convenient than a Monster Manual reference.The long format looks great, very clear, and the tactics section helps a lot.
The stub format could stand do be a bit longer. I know we are all opposed to paying n-times for the stats of a kobold warrior, it would be nice if in addition to the MM page number we could get AC, saves, Attack, and Damage. Just enough to run 90% of the encounters without having to reference a second source.
The Delving for Dummies format puts out too much info, and this just a bit too little.
Example of my idea:
Kobold Warriors (5) Cr 1/4
I:+1 S:+2 L:+2
Def: hp 4 AC:15(t12,f14) F:+2,R:+1,W:-1
Off: M: Spear +1(1d6-1/×3) R: Sling +3(1d3-1)
MM: 161Or for creatures that appear a lot, such as kobold warriors (twice on this 1 page) put em on the inside of the back cover for easy reference.
I disagree, I really like the clarity and writing space these expanded statblocks provide. I hate having to lug out a big fat book at the table to look up something that isn't included in the statblock.
In your example, I could see where I could get used to it, but if I was just starting out I would say WTF is with these stupid codes. Just tell me what I need to know in plain, simple English. I don't even know right off what I:+1 meant, I had to look at the other stat block to get it.
Perhaps my compromise would be to shift to that format at higher levels, when the larger stat blocks get to be a problem, but keep them really simple at lower levels... e.g. Bolding the first letter so that you get used to seeing the I there. So in a first level adventure it's Init +1 but at level 10 it's I.
I like the inclusion of the spells in the offensive section.
But I'll second the earlier suggestion that
HD 2d6+2 hp 13
is a better way of expressing hit points. HD totals come up too much not to be specific.
And I know that ability scores rarely come up in combat, but golly, doesn't anyone else think it odd that those six numbers -- upon which everything else is built upon -- gets placed so low in a stat block chart? I prefer them paired with Saves (despite them being properly placed in the defensive section), since they are directly related.
Typograhpically, if any section doesn't need an intro, it's Ability scores. Dropping the word Abiities gets the Cha score on the same line as the rest and you'll be gaining that line for every stat block you build. That's a good space gain over the course of a module, especially since you are adding the DEFENSE OFFENSE TACTICS STATS sub headers.
If anything in D&D is understood nearly universally, it's the Ability score abbreviations.
A stub block that is reminiscent of the old days would be cool, too:
AC 9, hp 26, Spd 30, Atk +3, Dmg 1d8+1, Will +4. MM 161
Dropping languages out of the intro section makes good sense.
I like it a lot, but of course I do have suggestions/questions.
1. Add check boxes next to each spell (or spell level if a sorcerer)... I hate drawing lines through spells.
I do that for stats in my home game and it really works out nice. But it is a space hog, especially with high-level characters (which is where, unfortunately, you need it most).
But that's a great suggestion.
I disagree, I really like the clarity and writing space these expanded statblocks provide. I hate having to lug out a big fat book at the table to look up something that isn't included in the statblock.
In your example, I could see where I could get used to it, but if I was just starting out I would say WTF is with these stupid codes. Just tell me what I need to know in plain, simple English. I don't even know right off what I:+1 meant, I had to look at the other stat block to get it.
Perhaps my compromise would be to shift to that format at higher levels, when the larger stat blocks get to be a problem, but keep them really simple at lower levels... e.g. Bolding the first letter so that you get used to seeing the I there. So in a first level adventure it's Init +1 but at level...
Just to clarify (not sure it addresses your issue), but I would only want Dragonmann's mini stat block for straight outta Monster Manual sort of monsters as an expansion to the 2 line
Kobold warriors (5) CR 1/4hp 4 each; MM 161
I would absolutely not endorse this for other stat blocks.
That being said, personally, I lean towards full stat blocks for everything (including straight out of Monster Manual critters - SOOMMCs? ;) MMCs?). However, given that A) a great many people greatly dislike that, and B) it takes up space in a fixed page-count product, I'm willing to compromise and have mini statblocks the MMCs. For products that are electronic/PDF-only, I see no reason to not reprint everything possible. But with print products, full statblocks for MMCs do take space away from more valuable original content.
Oh, and I agree on bolding. Indents and bolds are the stat block's best friends forever.
Well I usually end up typing everything into a 8.5 x 11 sheet for each creature in an encouter anyhow... so I have lots of room to write, so I can add my own check boxes I suppose :)
I like the grouping of defense, offense, tactics, and statistics.
But...
Stat blocks should be organized for practical use during combat before anything else and put descriptors at the end of the block.
When the PCs are about to thump it, its class choice and alignment isn't information I need to know before anything else--what matters most are things like its HP, AC, and melee attacks--which take the creature's choice of classes into account.
My block would start thusly:
Dark Talon Hunter CR 3
Small, kolbold, humanoid (reptilian)
Init +7, Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Listen +6, Spot +6
Size is more important than creature type because size dictates what miniature is brought out--that's what I need to know first. Also, having size more prominent makes planning for the night's adventure easier, since it's easier to tell at-a-glance which miniatures I should get out before everyone shows up.
I like how spells are listed by higher level first. NPCs will absolutely bust out their high level spells because their time is short. ;)
By the by, why are AC and SQ capitalized, but hp is not?
Looks good. I approve! =)
-The Gneech
Another fan of the new format here. I looked at it and immediately thought, "Why haven't they been doing that all along?" Which is a mark of genius right there.
Good work, guys. I'm very much looking forward to Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules now.
When the PCs are about to thump it, its class choice and alignment isn't information I need to know before anything else--what matters most are things like its HP, AC, and melee attacks--which take the creature's choice of classes into account.
.....By the by, why are AC and SQ capitalized, but hp is not?
I often rely on class desriptions ... they're a very good shorthand on how to play a particular encounter. Rogues will be sneaky, fighters straightforward, wizards and clerics will come out firing, etc. So for me, that information is valuable enough to have at the top of the stat block.
Why isn't hp captizalized? Good question. In all the material from earlier sources of the game that I own, such as modules from the early 1980s, hp is lowercase.
It's probably to indicate it being a subcategory of Hit Dice, the way flat footed and touch are subcategories of AC.
Then again, it could just be tradition.
THank you for putting the details back in the AC. When affects that effect armor come into play (I had a PC wizard with a spell like that), I hate digging into the combat gear section to find out what the heck they're wearing, and then the PHB to see it's bonus.
|
my two cents worth.
In an adnventure I need their AC, hit points, saves, attacks and loot. Their special abilities need to be listed so I know what they do. A line of what book they come from could replace stuff like their ability scores. Very rarely do I need those and if I do I can look those up in the book.
Now, I do rather like the tactics idea. One it takes that burden off me and also allows the writers to determine flavor in the world. It is more "realistic" if all kobolds tend to behave in similar ways. Or if yellow kbolds will run when they get few hp, black ones stand and fight to the death, green ones tend to set up ambushes and flee if they are attacked. As long as there is some consistency, it works.
That also only works if the DM is using the premade world or it fits his homebrew. A homebrew where kobolds always fight to the end will not find those tactics very useful.
Oh, yeah one other thing, how about two phrases they would use in combat. After the fiftieth kobold screams "die miserable human! Arggggh!" combat gets kind of old and just devolves down to roll the dice and see how long this critter takes to die.
thank you, thank you for putting back the HD break down.
in other ways, too, the format looks remarkably usable, which is a good thing. (I personaly did not realy like the the DMG2, post DMG2 dungeon format, but find this one fairly simple and elegant).
Yay for HD breakdown! That was among my biggest "whine-points" in the current WoTC Stat-block.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Hooray for the return of AC and hp source calculations! I just can never trust those numbers in the current WotC format.
Yes AC and HD breakdowns are very neccessary, Abilities are neccessary especially with as many stat point penalty inducing spells there are.
|
Creative Director
|
I still don't see how HD breakdowns matter at all, unless you're getting in to the stat block to rebuild it or something. In game, the type of hit dice a creature has never has any effect. And for really complex monsters, I can see it actually getting in the way and creating an extra line of stat block now and then, which kind of makes me wince. A half-fiend troll sorcerer rogue blackguard, for example:
hp 216; HD 7d8+6d4+6d6+3d10+132; regeneration 5; DR 10/magic
Is a lot more ugly and clutter-filled than:
hp 216; (22 HD); regeneration 5; DR 10/magic
I'm 99% sure Pathfinder will be showing the HD breakdowns anyway, since we want to use the same stat blocks for all Paizo products. And in most cases, it won't be a problem. I'll learn to live with it, I guess. If someone can give an example of a case in-game where the type of HD matters, I'll feel a lot less cranky. The only one I can think about is energy drains, and even then the type of HD lost doesn't enter play until 24 game hours later...
Hmm... in fact, our new statblock's method of showing HD makes it MORE difficult in play, since in the case of our half fiend troll above, you can't tell at a glance just how many HD he has. You have to go in there and do math to get to 22 HD, which is important for many spell effects like cloudkill or holy word or sleep or whatever. Hmmm indeed...
|
|
If someone can give an example of a case in-game where the type of HD matters, I'll feel a lot less cranky.
There may not be a good in game reason to be honest. I was a little disapointed when Dungeon stopped giving the HD break down simply when adversaries used PrC's (or Core Classes for that matter) from splat books that I don't own (which is most of them - Core Three are fine for me). Made it a bit more difficult to rebuild, or just to see what sort of juice that particular class had.
Mind you, I got over that disapointment fairly quickly.
James the problem is that I almost never run adventure as is, and almost always tweak the monsters and NPC's to better fit into my game, that is why the HD breakdown matters to me, it makes it much easier to see at a glance where those HD come from, how much is con bonus with out having to actualy multiply (especialy for very high HD monsters),etc. while you may say "Since you have to do all of this pregame anyway you can just look it up" and while that may be true, I have a lot going on, and anything that can help speed the process along is something I am in favor of.
plus even when I do use an adventure or a monster there in pretty much as writen I generaly go through and roll HP for them rather then use the average number, I make my players roll thier characters HP, so I expect the monsters should be treated the same.
I know there has been a general trend toward averaging everything... give monsters average HP, give all NPC's the same ability score array (adjusted for race and level) etc... but personaly I see this as a bad thing, and a slippery slope, slowly the randomness is being weeded out of the game, and while it might indeed put people on a more level playing field, it takes a lot of the fun away. I fear for the future of the game if this trend continues as it has in the past few years. I can forsee a time when there will be no reason to roll dice at all.
I am sure that my warnings and dire predictions will be as noticed as Cassandra's, but some times a person feels the need to try none the less.
Hmm... in fact, our new statblock's method of showing HD makes it MORE difficult in play, since in the case of our half fiend troll above, you can't tell at a glance just how many HD he has. You have to go in there and do math to get to 22 HD, which is important for many spell effects like cloudkill or holy word or sleep or whatever. Hmmm indeed...
I do think that the total HD (in your example, 22) needs to be listed in the Stat Block. Having the hit dice broken down is nice but not essential in my case.
Other thoughts:
1. The AC breakdown is great
2. The DEFENSE, OFFENSE, TACTICS, and STATISTICS sections and headings are fantastic.
3. Init instead of I for me -- just the way my brain works.
4. Having the DC of spells listed at the beginning of each spell level's list seems like a good idea -- is there a reason not to save the space used in printing the DC in parenthesis next to each spell?
I think the new Stat Block is headed in the right direction, and I am glad it will be used the same in both Pathfinder and GameMastery Modules.
And my thoughts to add...
Overall, I love the stat blocks, and see them as an overall improvement.
I do have a few nitpicks and suggestions, though, much like everyone else. :-)
1) This has bothered me for forever... the fonts. It looks like Arial or Verdana, but then sometimes a different font is used for parentheticals, sometimes not, without seeming consistency. For example, the numbers in the AC parantheticals I swear are a version of Georgia. Then, in Kerrdremak's stat block, the Melee mwk club +3 (1d3) uses that same font for the numbers for both the +3 and 1d3. But, the Dark Talon Hunter stat block has the normal font for the numbers listed in the Melee section. What's the pattern? Is there one? What are the fonts used? This has been bugging me for years....
2) I prefer the basic cumber of HD listed in the hp line. For new monsters or races or what have you (listed in the appendix, I presume?) I would prefer the full calculation.
3) I like the AC breakdown, definitely.
4) I love the Offense, Defense, etc. headers. But, I would prefer the Tactics header to go last. I like to have all the numbers sections together, and not broken up by the "text" of Tactics. I do like it included in the stat block, however, and not separate, as well as the type of information that is included.
5) I agree that Abilities does not need its title: Str, Dex, etc. are fully self-explanatory.
6) I think Combat gear should be included in the Offense section, as before. Knowing what options a character has for their actions in the round, including using their "Gear," is very useful.
Thanks for the preview! It looks terrific!
|
|
Having read all the additional posts, I think there is a clear need for 3 formats:
The long format (yay for the preview)
The reference format (i.g. see MM777 or see pg22)
The stub format similar to what i posted before, enough to run a whole, typical encounter without opening another book, but having the page reference for when things go wonky. I understand a lot of confusion from my over abbreviated sample above, but once you've seen it once or twice, you will have it down... kinda like the everyone knows Str is Strength comment, along time ago it was abbreviated S16, which is smaller than Str 16 (by 50% even), once you know the abbreviations you are good forever
Otherwise, I think HD # is more useful for running the adventure, and HD sources more useful for tweaking it. Now to decide if more people want the adventure as a resources for converting it to their world or as a as-is adventure to run straight outta the book
I would like to see a very short notation for types of saves for spells/other effects. Instead of DC13, maybe W13N (Will 13 Negates) or R13H (Reflex 13, half), only reason to list the DCs all out that way, otherwise, just give me the base number and I will ad spell levels myself
|
Creative Director
|
I do think that the total HD (in your example, 22) needs to be listed in the Stat Block. Having the hit dice broken down is nice but not essential in my case.
But it does. Having the total number of Hit Dice available is FAR more important in game than knowing how those HD break down. Spells like holy word or cloudkill or sleep or circle of death or planar binding use total HD to determine what kind of and how many creatures the spell can affect. Likewise, many monster and class abilities hinge on it, such as the lich's fear gaze or dragon fear.
And I do understand that showing the HD breakdown does help readers who need to get in there and adjust stats for their games. But the stat block's primary purpose isn't that; it's to present the most streamlined possible flow of information to ease actual game play. It's just my worry that cluttering up the line that's the most often used and most important (the lien with hit points) is a bad move. It actually might be better to put the number of HD at the top next to the hit points, and then to list the HD breakdown at the end of the stat block where the other guts go?