|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 10:41AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
I would propose another type of stat block entirely: the page as a user interface. The block would be a 'screen' with pertinent data placed in specific areas of the page. Name, type, alignment, languages, and XP in the upper left corner, Initiative, speed, and senses in the upper right corner, ability scores along the left edge, AC in the lower left corner, attack/damage along the bottom edge, HP in the lower right corner, spells/powers along the right edge, and all other relevant info (incl. illustration) in the center. That would fill the top half of the page. The bottom half would have all the descriptive fluff/flavor text.
We live in the digital age, so I think we're already inclined to absorb information in this fashion. I've built the initiative cards for my PCs in this format and it works great.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 11:11AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2003
|
I want two different stat blocks. One in the MM that is very robust, probably more akin to the Pathfinder organization (encounter information [such type, overall XP value [or level appropriateness], senses, languages, etc. and probably to include ability scores since they affect everything now], defensive information [although perhaps combined with encounter information], offensive information [although I like the breakdown of action, reaction], other game information, interaction information -- albeit slimmed down since D&DN appears to have much simpler math), but with 4E's built in ability descriptions. I also want the details about environments and organization and such in there like we use to have in 2E. This gives me a lot of information at a glance to figure out just about anything I want to know about the creature.
I then want fluff details about what they look like (even if there is an illustration) and act, the culture, how they fit in the world, how they fight (akin to 3.5E to the extent necessary), and what players might now about them -- a little less in-depth fluff than 2E, but a heck of a lot more info than 4E gave us.
But in modcules and other products, I want a shortened version of the above stat block that cuts out the unnecssary information or finds someway to further abbreviate or summarize that information to what's relevant to the encounter with a touch extra if things go awry (the party doesn't just fight and kill the goblin, but somehow co-opt the goblin). I like the idea of having a summary sentence or two for all the descriptive stuff in the Monster Manual -- something like, "Goblins are short, green-skinned, cunning humanoids that conduct raids on other humanoids. They work effectively in groups, but are generally not feared individually" or "Balors are huge demonic humanoids with massive tusks and bat-like wings. They lead multitudes of demons by a combination of brute force and cunning. They lust for open battle, but are wise enough to flee to exact their revenge another day if necessary."
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 12:15PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I don't mind some of these suggestions. I didn't mind that kobolds had something special to set them apart. I'm just saying that not every humanoid race has to have something special. I think their "tactics" could be what sets them apart. But tactics don't have to be expressed as a power.
But powers that enable specific tactics help in fleshing them out. Look at 4e kobolds: all my players remember these shifty bastards that you could not pin down. And they all know that they should avoid being surrounded by gnolls at any cost. Pack attack is not something you can simulate with tactics. You can use tactics to make gnolls surround an enemy but you can't increase their damage.
The 4e gnoll is naturally driven to surrounding enemies because he knows he can bite harder (pun intended). In 4e monster tactics descend naturally from what a monster is in mechanical terms (whether he uses powers, features, auras, whatever).
I dislike these thinks being linked specifically to monsters as powers. 4e did this with the PCs too. If surrounding an enemy gives you some advantage (and it should massively) then make it part of the basic rules. Combat advantage is a paltry bonus for have someone on opposite sides. In real life even if your a navy seal of swordplay that means death in most instances. Now I'm not saying it should be death because we are playing heroes here. But give a +1 per enemy when more than one enemy is attacking you wouldn't be unreasonable. Getting surrounded should be something you desperately do not want.
One of the things 4e did in my games was eliminate rational tactics and replace them with gamist tactics. I had a Rogue player say to me one time - I know it doesn't make sense but if I don't do that then my character is gimped. I agreed with him. The rules encouraged unrealistic tactics. If you really were going adventuring, staying in formation (especially at low level), would be essential. Having fallback points, choke points, fields of fire, would be essential. Force the enemy into an tight space and then fireball them. 4e encouraged big room everyone run in all directions tactics.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 12:20PM
#44
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Cool, or course some of those 3rd Ed paragraph blocks would make your eyes bleed, 2nd Ed had a good system.
Save it for the poll!
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 12:24PM
#45
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
if a module writer goes through the trouble of developing unique, compelling monsters that don't already exist in the monster manual, you won't buy the module?
I think any adventure with unique monsters should have a Monster Manual-style Appendix with the full write-up for this new monster. But the adventure itself should use the condensed paragraph-style block for that monster. That's how it was done in AD&D adventures and I think that was a good policy.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 1:29PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
I think any adventure with unique monsters should have a Monster Manual-style Appendix with the full write-up for this new monster. But the adventure itself should use the condensed paragraph-style block for that monster. That's how it was done in AD&D adventures and I think that was a good policy.
Agreed. I like having just the information needed to handle the monster at that point in the adventure right there where the rest of the text is. An appendix with the unique or new monster at the back is great. The less I have to stack up around me to run something, the better, and even more so if it's a published adventure. I got quite used to that format in 1st and 2nd.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 1:39PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
if a module writer goes through the trouble of developing unique, compelling monsters that don't already exist in the monster manual, you won't buy the module?
I think any adventure with unique monsters should have a Monster Manual-style Appendix with the full write-up for this new monster. But the adventure itself should use the condensed paragraph-style block for that monster. That's how it was done in AD&D adventures and I think that was a good policy.
Yes, but that's not what was being described in the post I was responding to.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:20PM
#48
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Yes, but that's not what was being described in the post I was responding to.
Right. What he wrote was "When I see a module that is mostly just pages and pages of reprinted statblocks I don't buy it."
You then assumed that his opinon carried over for original (i.e., non-reprinted) statblocks and then attacked that assumption. This is also known as a strawman argument.
I was trying to politely redirect the conversation away from that error, but since you insist on going back to the source, I guess I have to be more explicit.
|
|
|
