|
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?
I'd call that a winning plan, you could dump the line on all the simple and obvious. I don't think anyone needs a breakdown for the HD of a Fighter 1 Human.
That would make everyone happy I suspect. I for one am with you James, I don't need to see how the critter was made in game, but I do need to know that total HD.
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?
That would be an excellent plan, James.
|
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?
Yeah, that sounds fine. I like having it somewhere so that I can verify the accuracy of the numbers, and to make adjustments. But the full breakdown could definitely clutter the combat section.
I'll add my vote: Yes.
You could always use this format, which should make both types of peeps happy:
"half-fiend troll sorcerer(6) rogue(6) blackguard(3), for example:
hp 216; HD (22); regeneration 5; DR 10/magic"
This way if peeps need to rebuild the critter they can do so with just a tiny bit of math. I do think having some whitespace next to the HP is a good idea though.
Creative Director
|
You could always use this format, which should make both types of peeps happy:
"half-fiend troll sorcerer(6) rogue(6) blackguard(3), for example:
hp 216; HD (22); regeneration 5; DR 10/magic"
Yup. Which is pretty much the exact way we do it in Dungeon right now. But the outcry for Hit Die types was still rather loud.
A part of my problem for including the types of Hit Dice is that it only really helps readers who DO go in and rebuild the stats or have some urge to double check the math on every monster. So if we're including the breakdown of hit die types, why stop there? Why not include skill ranks, break down attack bonuses, and indicate which feats are bonus feats? At a certain point, the stat block goes from something that almost looks elegant and is easy to navigate during the heat of battle into something that looks like answers from the back of a teacher's edition of an advanced calculus textbook. I personally want to err on the side of clarity.
And in any event, most of this is just me ranting about something that's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, so take it all with a grain of salt.
In relation to Stat Blocks, old, new or what-have-you, does anyone know where I can find a blank template to use? A DOC or fillable-form PDF would be great. I'd love something as usable as Mad Irishman's 4-page PDF character sheet forms, (unsolicited endorsement)which I use for all my characters as they print beautifully and they're perfect for emailing to the DM or another player in the event that I can't make it to a game.(/unsolicited endorsement)
;)
- Chris Shadowens
Chris, go here for a DMG II stat block in doc format.
A part of my problem for including the types of Hit Dice is that it only really helps readers who DO go in and rebuild the stats or have some urge to double check the math on every monster.
or those people, like me, who think that because a monster has a number of hit DICE that some dice should be rolled to determine its Hit Points, rather then just taking the average every time. I am fine with it being syuck on the end "in the guts" so to speak. with the total HD up in parenthesis at the top by the HP, but having the breakdown someplace is something I feel is important.
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.
This idea seems to have gotten lost in the great hit die debate, but I think it has a lot of merit. I’d like it if the warriors were stated out in Dragonmann’s stub format the first time they are presented and given the reference format thereafter.
As an aside, I also like the idea of hp going to the right of HD, so there is blank space to the right where I can track hp during combat.
I forgot who suggested it, but I also think having a few statements that the critters are likely to say during combat in the tactics section would be nice. Both for attacking and for retreating if morale fails.
Outside of that, I love it!
I like the AC breakdown, definitely.
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.
I agree that Abilities does not need its title: Str, Dex, etc. are fully self-explanatory.
I agree with all three of these points. Just out of curiousity, though, why does the combat gear/possessions section not get its own header? That would make more sense to me, organization-wise: a +1 dagger is not in any way a "statistic," whereas combat gear and possessions are both "items carried." In the example shown, maybe a 3rd line for "accessories" could even list the kobold's earrings, saving that much more text.
I forgot who suggested it, but I also think having a few statements that the critters are likely to say during combat in the tactics section would be nice.
Allow me to register a "nay" vote for "hooks" or one-liners. In stat blocks that included them, they were almost universally corny and/or useless.
|
I agree with the above mentioned proposal as well:
I love the new stat block format! It makes finding critical information so much easier!
I'd also like to dispense with referencing to several books at once during a combat encounter, though. It's getting cramped sometimes, if you have to look up monster information in two books and additionaly have to track combat development behind your DM screen... ;-) A very short version of the main stats for standard critters would be most helpful!
One additional question:
I love the morale and tactics section, as well as the affiliation and other information currently found in Dungeon adventures. In other words: the rules used from PH II and DMG II.
Will you be able to stick to these rules which really add depth to an adventure?
If not: Will you be able to make up "simplified" alternatives to these rules?
Or will we have to dispense with these real enrichments of the game?
Thanks in advance,
Günther
|
hp 216; (22 HD); regeneration 5; DR 10/magicIf you change that to
HD 22; hp 216
...DR 10/magic; Regeneration 5(The ellipses are to simulate spacing/indent.)
then I'll be with you 100%. I want whitspace to the right of the hp! :)Stuff like DR, Regen, Fast Healing can go underneath.
Ditto the whitespace... to be honest this is where I usually keep track of damage when I can, right n the page.
I'd like to see Knowledge info for the first instance of a monster; I never know exactly how much the players know on that skill check.
Contributor
|
Allow me to register a "nay" vote for "hooks" or one-liners. In stat blocks that included them, they were almost universally corny and/or useless.
And believe me, we hated writing them. The hook of the monster should be clear from reading through its stat block or glancing through its abilities. That's something Dr. Jacobs taught me and to this day it's stuck in my mind. :)
Allow me to register a "nay" vote for "hooks" or one-liners. In stat blocks that included them, they were almost universally corny and/or useless.And believe me, we hated writing them. The hook of the monster should be clear from reading through its stat block or glancing through its abilities. That's something Dr. Jacobs taught me and to this day it's stuck in my mind. :)
You guys are awesome! Now, if only we could convince the learned "Dr. J." that wizards are NOT just a lame form of sorcerer...
|
Creative Director
|
You guys are awesome! Now, if only we could convince the learned "Dr. J." that wizards are NOT just a lame form of sorcerer...Allow me to register a "nay" vote for "hooks" or one-liners. In stat blocks that included them, they were almost universally corny and/or useless.And believe me, we hated writing them. The hook of the monster should be clear from reading through its stat block or glancing through its abilities. That's something Dr. Jacobs taught me and to this day it's stuck in my mind. :)
TOO LATE!
Wizards are just sorcerers who can't cast as many spells in a day, and even then, they have to pay taxes on the spells they CAN cast and if someone sneaks in and steals their spell book they turn into commoners with fewer class skills.
Wizards suck. Oh! I said it!
TOO LATE!
Wizards are just sorcerers who can't cast as many spells in a day, and even then, they have to pay taxes on the spells they CAN cast and if someone sneaks in and steals their spell book they turn into commoners with fewer class skills.
Wizards suck. Oh! I said it!
That's why you have to allow them to have the Artificer's craft pool, and a free reserve feat every few levels.
I'd like to see Knowledge info for the first instance of a monster; I never know exactly how much the players know on that skill check.
This is something I had not thought of, but would like to voice my resounding agreement. This would be an excellent addition, if not for the normal stablock, then definitely for new monsters.
Oh, and I would like to reiterate my question from an earlier post...
James, Erik, etc., whomever...
What are the fonts, for which sections, that you use for your statblocks?
If someone can give an example of a case in-game where the type of HD matters, I'll feel a lot less cranky.
Aside from the aforementioned altering of a creature's HD/level, I ran a very melee-heavy party once and had to bump every creature's hitpoints from the standard 50% up to 70-75% to make them last long enough to be worth the XP. Not having the full HD breakdown makes that process extremely tedious. I'll grant you, that's a corner case, though.
The name of the font we use for our stat blocks is: NexusSansOT.
...
But I can tell that the font is different in different sections, particularly in the lists of spells, or sometimes in the AC breakdown.
NexusSansOT has "lined numerals" where the numbers are similar to an uppercase letter. I've seen fonts in Dungeon, as well as your new stat block, with "text figures" or "old-style" numerals where some numbers look like lowercase letters.
For example, in the new stat block, take a look at Kerrdremak and the Senses or AC line: those are NexusSansOT numerals.
But looking at the AC breakdown, CR, spells prepared, or the Melee line: those are not NexusSansOT numbers. Those are numbers that are more similar to the Georgia font.
Not only that but looking at Dark Talon Hunter: Melee, the numbers look different, those look like NexusSansOT.
Why the differences, and what font is used for the numbers that go below the line, with some that look like lowercase letters?
Sorry, I'm just really curious. :-)
About those Knowledge checks...any word on them? Any plans on how to handle them?
I wonder if there is a kind of documentation about the new Paizo stat block format comparable to that in the Dungeon Writer Guidelines that the Paizo staff might be able to share with us?
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 assume it's for those cases where casters have feats like Spell Focus, which raises the DC.
Alternatively, one could put the standard DC next to the spell list and then just add a parenthesis next to those spells affected by e.g. Spell Focus.|
Creative Director
|
Why the differences, and what font is used for the numbers that go below the line, with some that look like lowercase letters?
Sorry, I'm just really curious. :-)
Mainly because different fonts make stat blocks stand out more, and make it easier to fit long strings of number/word combos into less space. We're using different fonts in Pathfinder.
Sean Glenn's the Paizo Font expert. He's on vacation for a couple weeks though, but if I remember when he gets back I'll tell him about this thread.
|
Creative Director
|
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 assume it's for those cases where casters have feats like Spell Focus, which raises the DC.
Alternatively, one could put the standard DC next to the spell list and then just add a parenthesis next to those spells affected by e.g. Spell Focus.
Yeah, there are actually a LOT of reasons why a spell save's DC might change; Spell Focus is only one of them. Also, listing save DCs next to the spell's name is a super handy way of reminding the reader which spells need saves, and which ones don't.
|
Creative Director
|
I'd like to see Knowledge info for the first instance of a monster; I never know exactly how much the players know on that skill check.
In Pathfinder, we aren't going to be listing Knowledge checks for the monsters. I thought long and hard about it, but in the end, decided against.
Unless you put ALL of the relevant information about a monster into a Knowledge check table, it's weirdly incomplete. But if you put ALL the knowledge about the monster in there, the table gets HUGE and ends up just repeating the information you've already listed about the monster. In that sense, its space wasted that can be used to give MORE information about a new monster, rather than just repeating information we just told you.
Also, I think that the Knowledge check tables kind of make players lazy and spoil things. If a PC has lots of ranks in Knowledge skills, and he wants to use them to see what he knows about a monster (or just to identify it), have him make the check but ask him what it is he's asking about. The information's at your fingertips still on how to answer him, but without the DC list, you get to choose what you reveal (which lets you make things difficult or easy for the PC as the situation demands).
If there's a huge upcry about no knowledge checks, I'll consider putting them back in. But know that if they DO go back in, we won't be able to include fun extra information about monsters, such as the list of legends that accompany the Sandpoint devil's writeup (posted here).
If a PC has lots of ranks in Knowledge skills, and he wants to use them to see what he knows about a monster (or just to identify it), have him make the check but ask him what it is he's asking about. The information's at your fingertips still on how to answer him, but without the DC list, you get to choose what you reveal (which lets you make things difficult or easy for the PC as the situation demands).
While I'm cool with the decision, and would rather have the extra info, as I can just drop a post-it not or use highlighters* or something like that. I think you're actually looking at the problem the wrong way. I don't often get questions about what they players don't know, but what the players do know and the PCs might or might not.
It's the whole "do I know that my sword won't work vs. skeletons" problem.
*Actually, that's a thought; highlighting or slightly shading the background to indicate levels of knowledge...
If there's a huge upcry about no knowledge checks, I'll consider putting them back in. But know that if they DO go back in, we won't be able to include fun extra information about monsters, such as the list of legends that accompany the Sandpoint devil's writeup.
Actually, I liked the idea that if the character asks if they know anything about the monster's attacks, then if they roll high enough you let them know if it has a breath weapon, what it is, if it has spells, etc.
If they ask what they can do to harm it, they find out about their energy resistance, DR, SR and outright immunities.
A combat oriented wizard probably wants to know what he can do to blow the thing up, and a defense oriented cleric probably would like to know what to do to keep the party from being destroyed/dominated/slow roasted by the monster they are facing. An arbitrarily assembled Knowledge table does seem to limit the usefulness of the skill.
Any info on the fonts that are (supposed to be) used for each section of a stat block?
:-)
|
|
Yeah, there are actually a LOT of reasons why a spell save's DC might change; Spell Focus is only one of them. Also, listing save DCs next to the spell's name is a super handy way of reminding the reader which spells need saves, and which ones don't.
Anyone Like my suggestion of indicating the type of save along with the DC? I hate knowing the save for a certain spell is DC 15, then having to look up if it is fortitude or reflexes. (F15) after a spell instead of DC15 conveys some extra helpful information.
---
Also in regards to knowledge checks, maybe a super scipt number here and there through the text, along with a note at the very top indicating the applicable know. skill.
Breath weapon <superscipt>15</superscript> wouldn't take up that much more space, is relatively easy to follow.
Just a thought