Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EvilVegan 09-16-07, 10:47 AM	I was writing up some monster entries for an upcoming game and I was wondering if there were any example entries of the new stat block that I could use as reference? I don't actually own MM4 or MM5, but I've seen it and like it better.
ArchmageOmega 09-16-07, 02:32 PM	Try this article. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060707a) BTW, I like the new format too. It's much more logical.
EvilVegan 09-16-07, 03:25 PM	Logical is always good. Better than simply "traditional" anyway. Thanks! That was exactly what I needed.
Xiuhcoatl 09-16-07, 06:38 PM	There is little logic to it, and this subject has been done to death. So a simple search for "stat blocks" and you will find many threads discussing the pros and cons. It amounts to this: To play, for newer players, the new block is better. Those who are used to the old format do not get much out of it To build monsters, the new format is terrible because much of the information vital for monster building is not necessarily best for play (HD breakdowns, special attacks/qualities all in one area, skills in one place and not duplicated, feats in one place and not duplicated, etc). So if you're going to be playing, and you're one of those DMs that run monsters as-is without adjustment, the new format is fine. If you're going to be making or modifying monsters, the old format is preferable.
EvilVegan 09-18-07, 08:58 AM	There is little logic to it, and this subject has been done to death. So a simple search for "stat blocks" and you will find many threads discussing the pros and cons. It amounts to this: To play, for newer players, the new block is better. Those who are used to the old format do not get much out of it To build monsters, the new format is terrible because much of the information vital for monster building is not necessarily best for play (HD breakdowns, special attacks/qualities all in one area, skills in one place and not duplicated, feats in one place and not duplicated, etc). So if you're going to be playing, and you're one of those DMs that run monsters as-is without adjustment, the new format is fine. If you're going to be making or modifying monsters, the old format is preferable.Really? I just did a conversion of a made up monster and it took me no time at all to adjust it. I think it just takes time to get used to the new format. The special quality thing is a bit odd though. If anything I'll make a modified stat block that has qualities of both. I also like how they took "Vorpal sword" out of the balor's special qualities, so you don't get them with shapechange
Xiuhcoatl 09-18-07, 09:21 AM	Yes, really. Look at this forum. Those that use the new format get on average fewer responses than those who use the old format. The old format is best for monster-making and monster critiquing. Any benefit provided by the new format (which I still doubt there are any real ones) are lost when trying to critique it. You may, in fact, be the exception: not the rule.
Slagger the Chuul 09-18-07, 10:25 AM	My first contact with the newer statistics block was in the DMG2, and I've just grown to like it more and more since then. It's major strength is in the final creature presentation (where it works wonders for almost any creature with class levels and does nicely for those without), but I've personally never had any trouble getting the monster information out of it, aside from the initial lack of familiarity of course. Now, I could easily design my monsters in the old statistic block and it would probably be a little bit quicker, but I don't like to put effort into making something that I'll just find harder to use in-game.
EvilVegan 09-18-07, 09:23 PM	Yes, really. Look at this forum. Those that use the new format get on average fewer responses than those who use the old format. The old format is best for monster-making and monster critiquing. Any benefit provided by the new format (which I still doubt there are any real ones) are lost when trying to critique it. That just shows that people are preferential to the old stat block, not that it is logically/actually better. People liked horses for a long while after cars came out. You may, in fact, be the exception: not the rule.Yay I'm Exceptional! :P
Suzu 09-18-07, 09:50 PM	The new state block rocks. The old one was ugly.
FrostHammer 09-18-07, 11:13 PM	I just wish the new stat block shows what dice the monster has. I mean, the Lilitu has 14 HD. Yay...are they D8s? D10s? What?
StruckingFuggle 09-19-07, 12:28 AM	Other than apparently leaving the sides of its hit dice off, geeze - how much does the stat block really matter, Xiuhcoatl?
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 09-20-07, 01:44 PM	Other than apparently leaving the sides of its hit dice off, geeze - how much does the stat block really matter, Xiuhcoatl? An enormous amount, if you're going to reverse engineer something.
EvilVegan 09-20-07, 02:47 PM	An enormous amount, if you're going to reverse engineer something. I don't entirely see how, Throatwarbler Mangrove. I can almost see it, but really they have the exact same amount of information. It is just in different places.
Xiuhcoatl 09-20-07, 06:02 PM	I can almost see it, but really they have the exact same amount of information. It is just in different places. In the Balor example, without looking at the old format, what is the Treasure, Advancement, Organization, and Environment?
Slagger the Chuul 09-21-07, 01:17 AM	In the Balor example, without looking at the old format, what is the Treasure, Advancement, Organization, and Environment? Advancement seems to have been left out, but the details of Treasure, Organization, and Environment aren't part of the statistics block in the new format. Anything that isn't useful for actually employing the creature in game is separate, and most of those are somewhat fluid. For example, most DMs I've seen never use the old Organization or Environment entries; they put monsters in whatever arrangement and environment made sense to them. Arguably, advancement is also just taking up valuable space when it appears as a line in the statistics block, but it's still present, for the most part. The treasure entry was never that much use, anyway, since you inevitably end up looking to the DMG to devise treasure. Done properly, the treasure section of the monster description tells you how much a monster's treasure is worth in gold pieces. Obviously, a monster whose treasure consists entirely of its gear, or one without treasure won't have a gold piece listing.
ArchmageOmega 09-21-07, 02:37 AM	If the missing information is the main reason for not using the new format, it's simple enough to add that information back. That's what I do anyway.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-21-07, 08:18 AM	The new statblock is a worthless example of coddling players at the expense of designers. Its wasteful repetition, lack of necessary components, and slew of unnecessary components (AtK Options, treasure, etc) are an insult to good game design everywhere.
EvilVegan 09-21-07, 08:21 AM	In the Balor example, without looking at the old format, what is the Treasure, Advancement, Organization, and Environment? That's it? That's the only info you're missing? I never even looked at those in the old format. They aren't derived from the statistics of the creature in question and don't belong in it's stat block. "Hi, my name's Steve. I'm a balor with a 20 strength and 30 hit dice which means I live in texas with my family and always carry cash." What?
Slagger the Chuul 09-21-07, 03:20 PM	The new statblock is a worthless example of coddling players at the expense of designers. Its wasteful repetition, lack of necessary components, and slew of unnecessary components (AtK Options, treasure, etc) are an insult to good game design everywhere. That's like saying that sword hilts are an example of coddling swordsmen at the expense of smiths.