What do you like/dislike about the formatting of 5e monster stat blocks?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not worrying about content, but layout, formatting, etc.

What parts are hard to use, what parts work well?

[Dualight]

Off the top of my head:

Likes:
-The bundling of Bonus Actions, then Actions, then Reactions, then Legendary Actions. Makes it really easy to see what the monster's options are for each part of the action economy.
-The block of basic stats, resistances/immunities, bonuses, etc. Again, its easy top tell what is in there, especially since that part of the layout is standardised.

Dislikes:
-(This one might be content) The opacity of the maths. It is clear that almost all saving throw DCs are 8+prof.+Ability modifier, but what ability they are based on is unclear, which makes it harder to see what to adjust if an ability score is changed (Like what would happen if a wolf was given a belt of giant's strength, for a random example). This also goes for attack rolls, and is especially opaque when there is more than one ability score the appropriate modifier. This complaint mostly applies when preparing for a session as a DM, but I can see it coming up for players when magic items are in play.
-This one is specific to shapechangers and some creatures with variable traits, where the variants are in the statblock itself: Form specific properties are put where the base form's version is also put, and not put together. As a result, the organisation of the statblock remains standard, which is fine, butit makes it more difficult to see what the total changes are for each form.

[Trask]

I like that everything is relatively easy to find. Its a definite plus of the stat block format. What I'm not a fan of is how big they tend to be without guidance for arranging them in the text. I wish they could figure out a format for that.

EDIT: Something like this.

Sharktopus: HD: 8D10+32 (HP: 80), AC 13 (natural armor), ATK: 1(melee)+6 to hit*, 4 (reach 15’)+5 hit **, DMG: 3D8 + 5 (bite - piercing), 1D6+2 (tentacle - bludgeoning) MV: Swim 50’, STAT: (S: 19, D:15, C: 18, I: 12, W: 12, CH: 6)
* The Sharktopus may not bite unless the target is in the water or has been grappled by the Sharktopus’ tentacles.
** Tentacle attacks inflict damage, and the target is automatically grappled, escape DC 18. Grappled targets are moved to the water if on land, and one can be devoured the next round for automatically successful bite attack. While using a tentacle to grapple the Sharktopus cannot use it to attack.
** Blood Frenzy: Sharktopus has advantage on all attacks against injured opponents.

[Atranen]

Like most official WotC products, they need improvements for usability at the table. For simple monsters, the content of the statblocks can fit on a single line; having them take up a 1/4 of a page is a pain, especially if you're running many different monsters in a combat. It means more flipping back and forth. For more complex ones, their conversational style makes them difficult to scan.

[stoutstien]

Missing or hidden information. Some of the best NPCs have unique tie in features but they hide them away or omit them completely.

Format. IMO the layout is hard to read.

Unclear intentions. Mechanics that are nonsense or only work with a tortured reading.

Too big. Some NPCs are PAGES of purely combat stuff. No reason for that.

Lack diversity. It's like the gun shop scene from Harry and the Hendersons but with slightly lower than normal intelligence bipedal creatures with limited ranges abilities.

[Witty Username]

I dislike things that require visiting other pages or books definitely, at least in material I am suposed to use at table. Spells, other monsters, etc. For modules, I think everything outside of the PHB should be reproduced in the module, and stat blocks should be part of the sections describing areas and maps.

[Chronos]

This probably falls under "content", but every edition since second has removed a lot of what might be called "fluff" information, about how these monsters fit in with the world. How many are typically encountered at once? How do they interact with other monsters? At what time of day are they active, and when do they sleep? If you kill one, is its carcass good for anything? What does it eat? Sure, the DM can play against type on any of these points, but it makes it a lot easier to have defaults you can fall back on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This probably falls under "content", but every edition since second has removed a lot of what might be called "fluff" information, about how these monsters fit in with the world. How many are typically encountered at once? How do they interact with other monsters? At what time of day are they active, and when do they sleep? If you kill one, is its carcass good for anything? What does it eat? Sure, the DM can play against type on any of these points, but it makes it a lot easier to have defaults you can fall back on.

My issue with that idea is multi-fold:
* In what setting? That's encoding very setting-specific information into the stat block itself.
* It clutters up the stat block (which is a run-time thing) with build-time information.
* It deters reusability by slightly modifying the block and calling it something else.
* It means that you mono-culture the creatures. If all orcs react the same way, that sets an attitude of single-naturedness that both I and WotC don't like. It's fixed alignments writ large.

I'd be fine with that information in the surrounding text, in the context of a specific setting (or sub-setting). But not as part of the block. Because it doesn't inform how I wield the monsters during an encounter, which is the entire point of the stat block IMO.

Stat blocks are cheat-sheets for an individual creature during an encounter. Not necessarily a combat encounter, but a time when they and the PCs are interacting with some form of dramatic tension/opposition/etc involved (not necessarily between that specific creature and the PCs--they might be an ally or an innocent 3rd party, but between some of the participants).

[stoutstien]

My issue with that idea is multi-fold:
* In what setting? That's encoding very setting-specific information into the stat block itself.
* It clutters up the stat block (which is a run-time thing) with build-time information.
* It deters reusability by slightly modifying the block and calling it something else.
* It means that you mono-culture the creatures. If all orcs react the same way, that sets an attitude of single-naturedness that both I and WotC don't like. It's fixed alignments writ large.

I'd be fine with that information in the surrounding text, in the context of a specific setting (or sub-setting). But not as part of the block. Because it doesn't inform how I wield the monsters during an encounter, which is the entire point of the stat block IMO.

Stat blocks are cheat-sheets for an individual creature during an encounter. Not necessarily a combat encounter, but a time when they and the PCs are interacting with some form of dramatic tension/opposition/etc involved (not necessarily between that specific creature and the PCs--they might be an ally or an innocent 3rd party, but between some of the participants).

To a point sure but stuff like a skeleton NPCs not having a clear cut list of condition immunities unless you read the flavor text page is an odd decision unless the base npc block doesn't assume immunity to stuff like fear or charm.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To a point sure but stuff like a skeleton NPCs not having a clear cut list of condition immunities unless you read the flavor text page is an odd decision unless the base npc block doesn't assume immunity to stuff like fear or charm.

I'm not sure how this relates? Condition immunities absolutely (IMO) belong on a character sheet--they're quintessential "how does this thing react to PC actions during an encounter" stuff. I'd expect such a hypothetical skeleton NPC (ie not just a basic generic skeleton) to be a hybrid of

* the base skeleton stat block
* an appropriate NPC block

with appropriate pieces taken from each, manually. I wouldn't expect you to be able to get there in a fully templated fashion--3e tried that and ended up mostly (again, IMO) in a broken mess that still required massive amounts of manual intervention to get meaningful monsters.

But things like "skeletons tend to patrol in groups of 3-6" or "skeletons hate all living things" or other such ecological parameters? Those are very scenario/setting dependent. And don't generally inform the stat block itself very strongly. So they belong outside the stat block in the surrounding descriptive[1] text.

[1] descriptive =/= flavor. It's just as much rule (IMO) as the stat block, just specialized for encounter/scenario build time, not run time. As with any rule, the DM can alter it at their whim. But it sets the expected (by the developers) parameters just like any other rule.

[Sorinth]

It's a tricky question because how much are we talking about using the stat block vs using the book containing the stat block? Because personally I hate having to open the MM in play, and even adventure modules I find it annoying to use their stat blocks as is. So whenever possible I'll make cue card sized stat blocks to use, so the biggest dislike would be the format isn't made for how I want to use them, but at the same time when flipping through the MM outside of actual play I doubt the cue card format would be desirable.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This probably falls under "content", but every edition since second has removed a lot of what might be called "fluff" information, about how these monsters fit in with the world. How many are typically encountered at once? How do they interact with other monsters? At what time of day are they active, and when do they sleep? If you kill one, is its carcass good for anything? What does it eat? Sure, the DM can play against type on any of these points, but it makes it a lot easier to have defaults you can fall back on.

I'll quote this because it's bang on what I was going to write. If I'm building a dungeon around a specific monster, 5e is really lacking in information that would help me. The CR thing, focused on balancing (often badly in practice) encounters seems to have taken the place of meeting groups of monsters that reflect lore around the way their society is organized.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a tricky question because how much are we talking about using the stat block vs using the book containing the stat block? Because personally I hate having to open the MM in play, and even adventure modules I find it annoying to use their stat blocks as is. So whenever possible I'll make cue card sized stat blocks to use, so the biggest dislike would be the format isn't made for how I want to use them, but at the same time when flipping through the MM outside of actual play I doubt the cue card format would be desirable.

So...what I'm hearing is "everything about the stat blocks doesn't work for you at run time"?

What information do you find absolutely necessary for run time? (ie what would a good "run time" stat block look like in your eyes)?

What do you use to judge monsters when selecting which ones to use? (ie what would a good "build time" stat block look like in your eyes)?


I'll quote this because it's bang on what I was going to write. If I'm building a dungeon around a specific monster, 5e is really lacking in information that would help me. The CR thing, focused on balancing (often badly in practice) encounters seems to have taken the place of meeting groups of monsters that reflect lore around the way their society is organized.

But does that have to be in the stat block itself rather than in the monster entry? This thread is trying to focus only on the first part. I agree that that information is lacking, for the most part, but I'd hate to have it clutter up my stat blocks at run time.

Although, I don't find WotC's descriptive abilities very good at all. And I'm most often ripping stat blocks entirely out of context and using them to represent monsters native to my world, so adding in this kind of information would just be entirely clutter. It'd be really useful in a setting-specific book, but in a generic one? Yeah, no. Too much variation. I can come up with all of that material myself and make it fit much better than they can. I need balanced stat blocks for actually running the monsters, since that takes substantial time and energy (including playtesting to get it right).

[Sorinth]

So...what I'm hearing is "everything about the stat blocks doesn't work for you at run time"?

What information do you find absolutely necessary for run time? (ie what would a good "run time" stat block look like in your eyes)?

What do you use to judge monsters when selecting which ones to use? (ie what would a good "build time" stat block look like in your eyes)?

It's less about the stat block itself and more having to use a book. Flipping between pages because the enemies are a mixed group, having to weigh down the open book so it stays open at the page you want, and even just the space it takes up on the table all annoy me when DMing. In a lot of ways it's like as a player using spell cards vs the PHB, it's not the information presented or even text formatting, it's just the ease of use you have from a set of card vs a book.

In terms of selecting monsters at "build time" I don't have any big complaints with how things are presented in the stat block, I find it quite readable at a glance. In particular I like that they show the average damage since I do tend to look more at the monster's offensive abilities then I do it's defensive stats when picking them (Art also plays a factor). That said the attacks can be a bit over cluttered, for example the "reach 5ft., one target." portion could easily be removed and only include it when it's non-standard.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So...what I'm hearing is "everything about the stat blocks doesn't work for you at run time"?

What information do you find absolutely necessary for run time? (ie what would a good "run time" stat block look like in your eyes)?

What do you use to judge monsters when selecting which ones to use? (ie what would a good "build time" stat block look like in your eyes)?



But does that have to be in the stat block itself rather than in the monster entry? This thread is trying to focus only on the first part. I agree that that information is lacking, for the most part, but I'd hate to have it clutter up my stat blocks at run time.

Although, I don't find WotC's descriptive abilities very good at all. And I'm most often ripping stat blocks entirely out of context and using them to represent monsters native to my world, so adding in this kind of information would just be entirely clutter. It'd be really useful in a setting-specific book, but in a generic one? Yeah, no. Too much variation. I can come up with all of that material myself and make it fit much better than they can. I need balanced stat blocks for actually running the monsters, since that takes substantial time and energy (including playtesting to get it right).

In fairness, a lot of the fluff shouldn't be in the stat block, but some should. I believe 1st and 2nd editions included basic group number ranges for both in and out of lair encounters, which would at least give DMs and players some idea of what the structure was. It would also be easy enough to come up with a set of descriptors to describe structures, like clan, horde, family, etc. that would provide a starting point. A list of potential allies wouldn't take up too much room either. From there, yes, it would be the responsibility of the DM to read further.

WotC doesn't seem too concerned about fleshing this sort of thing out in either stat blocks or accompanying text.

[Sorinth]

One more thing I would say about the stat block is that they should probably show the full CR and by that I mean the final as well as the Offensive/Defensive values).

[PhoenixPhyre]

In fairness, a lot of the fluff shouldn't be in the stat block, but some should. I believe 1st and 2nd editions included basic group number ranges for both in and out of lair encounters, which would at least give DMs and players some idea of what the structure was. It would also be easy enough to come up with a set of descriptors to describe structures, like clan, horde, family, etc. that would provide a starting point. A list of potential allies wouldn't take up too much room either. From there, yes, it would be the responsibility of the DM to read further.

WotC doesn't seem too concerned about fleshing this sort of thing out in either stat blocks or accompanying text.

Does that need to be in the stat block (as opposed to the rest of the entry)? I can't see that it should. Because it's entirely build time, not run time. And for me, the stat block is 100% run-time information and should be specialized for that.


One more thing I would say about the stat block is that they should probably show the full CR and by that I mean the final as well as the Offensive/Defensive values).

Agreed. My WIP actually does away with the "full CR" and just gives the Offensive/Defensive values, because it reworks the presentation of the encounter building guidelines (removing XP as a factor, among other things).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Does that need to be in the stat block (as opposed to the rest of the entry)? I can't see that it should. Because it's entirely build time, not run time. And for me, the stat block is 100% run-time information and should be specialized for that.



Agreed. My WIP actually does away with the "full CR" and just gives the Offensive/Defensive values, because it reworks the presentation of the encounter building guidelines (removing XP as a factor, among other things).

I think basic numbers and maybe potential allies would be handy to have up front without looking through a lot of text, it would save time when you're building, and might apply as encounters evolve. I can see things from the other point of view though; my main concern with the MM (and I gather it isn't yours) is that sort if info ranges from incomplete to MIA, so I'd be happy if it was anywhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think basic numbers and maybe potential allies would be handy to have up front without looking through a lot of text, it would save time when you're building, and might apply as encounters evolve. I can see things from the other point of view though; my main concern with the MM (and I gather it isn't yours) is that sort if info ranges from incomplete to MIA, so I'd be happy if it was anywhere.

My reluctance to this particular piece of information is really that I don't think it's the right place to put such stuff. That's so setting dependent unless you want to hard-code multiversal monocultures into the stat block. And not just monocultures--you'd lose the ability to easily have the same stat block represent similar but different monsters. You harm reusability tremendously by encoding such things into the stat block.

I personally would never really use such information. All the "lore" parts of Volo's (et al)? Yeah, the least useful by far. Because I don't run in WotC settings. In part because I find WotC worldbuilding to be laughable and useless at best, actively bad at worst. They do a passable job with mechanics (regarding monsters), but that's about it. So what I get out of a monster book is 100% the stat blocks and nothing else. But I expect I'm fairly outside the norm on that matter.

I could see a compromise--do like 4e did (but better) and include a subsection with a couple "suggested encounters" in the entry. At least for the more gregarious types. Something like

Orc Warband (Hard encounter @ level X):
* 4-6 orcs
* 1 orc fang of grumush
* 1 orc chieftain

Or

Goblin raiding band
* 3-4 goblins
* 1 goblin boss

Or

Goblin warg-riders
* 4-5 goblins
* 1-2 wargs

Etc.

[Chronos]

I think there might have been a miscommunication, here. I was taking "stat block" to mean the entire monster entry, not just the table, because the table usually isn't useful by itself (sure, it'll say that a monster has a particular ability, but except for the most common and often-used abilities, you'll need to read the text to know what the ability does). Lore information often shouldn't be in the table, and in fact often can't be, because it simply wouldn't fit. But it should be in the monster entry.

And with reference to monsters having a "monoculture", many monsters don't even have culture at all. And if they do, that's something else that would be in the monster entry, what aspects of their behavior are innate and what are cultural, so the DM has the tools to create different cultures for them.