Community

Sep 28, 2012 -- 6:23AM, mellored wrote:

Which do you prefer?

A) Full, Verbose Text.
An Ooze has no set form, which allows it to squeeze though small openings without penalties and cannot be knocked prone.


B) Short, Codified Text
Immunity: Prone, squeezing (formless)


C) Somewhere in between
Trait: Formless
Can move though small openings and is immune to prone.


D) Both.
An Ooze has no set form, which allows it to squeeze though small openings without penalties and cannot be knocked prone.  (Immunity: Prone, squeezing)

E) Other.


Totals:  (post #20)
A: 0.5
B: 4
C: 2.5
D: 6
E:

Definitely D, both.

• First the narrative description.
• Then a separate stat block with strictly technical descriptions summarizing the info in a table format.

DMs can opt to use as authoritative, only the narrative, or only the stat block, or both.

I like the narrative description first, because it illuminates the context that helps the technical terms in the stat block make sense.

Sep 28, 2012 -- 9:07AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Sep 28, 2012 -- 7:00AM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

B

Since somewhere within the rules it actually describes what "Immunity: Prone, squeezing (formless)" means, I don't/won't need it repeated for every monster that possesses it.

A properly laid-lout Monster Manual (or whatever delivery system they use for monsters) will have clearly-defined conditions/abilities/etc. listed, usually before the monster entires in achapter of their own. That and, if you can't figure out what "Immunity: Prone, squeezing (formless)" means in relation to an ooze, then I'm not sure just how much detail needs to be added for you to figure it out. As long as they use common-sense words, it should be easy enough to figure out without needing a description accompanying each entry.

This is a good point too.

I dont mind the narrative section creating vague rules for monsters. It reminds me of this weeks entry for the Underdark random tables, the one that describes different breeds of giant spiders that Drow are cultivating. Some spiders act as military medics, using their spinnerettes to bandage wounds. Other breeds use them to build military bridges, and secure unstable tunnels. Other breeds work as sentinels. And so on. There are no technical stats for these breeds - its upto the DM to invent them. But the casual format really inspires me as a DM to imagine the many different possibilities.

Of course, I usually want stats, but I appreciate a place for inspiring musings.

These spiders are an example, where the narrative descriptions invite the DM to go beyond the rules as written and make gaming decisions based on the story - not on the computer-like logical code.

I say E.

I want a more empowered GM, and an empowered GM doesn't need to be told that an ooze can't be knocked prone and squeezes through stuff more easily--it's a frickin' ooze, of course it can't be knocked prone and it'd be good at squeezing!  That's basically the definition of ooze.  So, I am sort of advocating for A, but A really doesn't need to be in the "layout" so much as it needs to be in the descriptive text, where it is explained that this thing is ooze.  Seriously, what happened to common sense?

D; i like the idea of flavor for explanations and keywords for reference.

B

I'd definitely like to see monster stat blocks as small as possible. The one thing I really dislike about the modern editions (3E/4E) was just how complicated monster stat blocks became. I want to see the stat bloat really cut down. Any monster should be able to be miniaturized to a single paragraph the way you could in 1E/2E. The monsters that take up half the page should be avoided at all costs.