I would argue a short, consize statblock should be printed in the actual module, when a monster/creature, npc is referenced and the detailed statblock can stay at the end of the book if any ruling questions appear.
I think people should probably know that Matt Colville was recently experimenting with putting all the stats of a monster for MCDMRPG on a *single line*. That way a whole encounter can be five lines of stats with special abilities written under it. Tactical depth and concise writing are not incompatible!
Plenty of AD&D and OSR products out there that do that as well; if your stat block only has a little bit of combat-relevant information, there's no reason for it to take up half a page. I expect MCDMRPG won't go that direction ultimately, though; those sorts of stat blocks are great for running snappy, mechanics-light combats where the results are determined largely by the initial conditions and player ingenuity; they're less good for running big setpiece encounters where the combat itself is meant to be fun, rather than being a high-stakes backdrop in which players are meant to find their own fun.
Experimenting. Because it is incompatible. You can’t have a statblock that is both concise and detailed enough for meaningful tactical decisions. At least not across all levels of knowledge. Without causing the dm to have to spend time looking through books or wikis or forums trying to figure out how that specific thing works or means
Bob World Builder DESTROYS haters with WELL CONSTRUCTED, persuasive case for simplified stat blocks and trademark affable demeanor!! Point 6 will SHOCK you (9/10 dentists hate him) 💯💯💀💀
The long stat block has its place in the encyclopedic Monster Manual, but short & concise stat blocks should be used in published adventures as a way for DMs not to lose themselves when flipping from one place to another.
Now this I agree with. The information should always be accessible WITHOUT HAVING TO FUCKING FOOGLE IT. But it doesn’t always have to be directly presented to your face. The Monster Manual should be where you go to GET all the crazy details you don’t necessarily NEED all the time but may want or need OCCASIONALLY. But in DM notes or in an adventure, stick to the basics. It should fit on an index card, or a couple of cards for creatures with spells or special abilities.
@@TxSonofLiberty 1) published adventures should always have small stat blocks, so DMs don't have to keep more than 1 book open to run a session. 2) TL;DR?
Wait. In order to avoid the DM getting lost while flipping between multiple books, you think that the information should be split between multiple books? Have the full stat block every time one of those creatures comes up in an adventure. Then you'll never even have to flip.
@@nitePhyyre No. My point is that big stat blocks should be in the Monster Manual, while the small stat blocks Bob is arguing for should be in the published adventure, where you only need the most minimalist data necessary for play.
@@jgr7487 So, you think that the big stat block should be in one book and some of if that info should be split off into another book, but you don't think that is splitting the information into multiple books?
Your ideas are great if you want a rules-light system with infinite flexibility. Some people like crunchy systems, and some people prefer being able to reference rules when questions come up in combat... especially with players who prefer to see things backed up in rules. Those people aren't going to like a slimmer stat block. Personally, I want something in the middle... a stat block that gives good detail but is easy to reference.
For me, the biggest problem with 5e statblocks is that they have too much prose, making them too hard to read quickly (which is also the same problem I have with pre-written adventures). I agree that we should try a compromise statblock. I don't like "+4 (1d6 + 2)" but I also don't like "This creatures makes a melee attack with its claws, with a +4 to hit, dealing 1d6 + 2 slashing damage on hit". In my opinion, something like "Melee attack with claws: +4 to hit, 1d6 + 2 slashing damage" is best. Prose isn't always bad, but I think it should be reserved for when something differs from the norm. Statblocks should be written like MTG cards. Mechanical information should never be left out, but prose should only be used to explain exceptions, not in every single attack.
Bob I do love that you at least acknowledged the error of exposing your back to an empty dark opening shows your awareness to the real world. Love your videos brother
I like complicated stat blocks that make combat interesting if they're done right! (D&D4e is a great example) - Don't use natural language, use short hand to bring down wordiness - Don't reference other places in the book (spells for example), have everything we need already there - Don't give me redundant information - Just does stuff, I shouldn't have to save for everything (monsters don't live long enough to fail their own action saves) Thats why I feel 5e and others stat blocks tend to suck. They're big with cool abilities (a plus) but they're also filled with a ton of UNHELPFUL information that's either redundant or fluff, weighing down the final product
Also you really don't need super long and complex stat blocks, because unique encounters are much more easily produced through the power of combinatorics. Having three stat blocks in one encounter that are each relatively low complexity, but that are unique and have synergy with other stat block and combat roles will make combat super dynamic and memorable once you use them together, and will do so without overloading the DM. The key thing is monster roles, and giving them 1-2 roles to fulfill their role. I also agree with all of the points you make about the actual stat block design.
I have to say I disagree with the subtype one, because yes that example for bugbears isn't something that might come up, other types do come up more commonly: construct, undead, fey, fiend, and such all pop up in a few spells and other mechanics. Sure you can hand wave that off, but it is pretty useful to have that fairly ready. Edit: Including it with that descriptor sentence in your stat block is a good approach Edit 2: The loot is absolutely amazing add, nice
Something very important is to remember you don't have to take into account just official stuff but the likelihood of someone wanting to use these sorts of tags and information for homebrew stuff too.
Not only do you not understand what you're talking about, you did not even pay attention to the part of the video that you're responding to Do you think that for animated armor it says 'medium humanoid (construct)'?
I think the Goblinoid just happened to be a bad example to use as it hardly ever comes up. A better example for a subtype to bring up would have been Shapechanger as multiple spells and effects (True Sight, Moonbeam, etc.) deal with it.
That ultra concise block almost gave me an anxiety attack! You do you, but I absolutely *hate* incomplete information, *especially* when I'm new to a game. As a player it feels like it leaves me open to mistakes and as a DM I want to know how much room I have to improvise, without accidentally retconning something that could lead to complications later.
Yes! While I agree that the wording for 5E's stat blocks often needs editing for clarity and concision, I find all the mechanical info necessary and helpful. Overall, I LIKE the 5E stat blocks and hate the minimalist approach - inevitably they would force me to chase down some piece of information that otherwise would've been there. I think the 5E approach to simply bolding creature's names in adventures works wonderfully, with any new/non-core stat blocks included in the back.
I hear ya, but part of what I'm saying is that the "incomplete" block is what the "complete" stat blocks look for other fantasy RPGs. And fewer rules = fewer mistakes, bc there are fewer rules to forget or "get wrong." But most importantly, even the D&D 5e core books tell the GM to make up whatever they want, and not worry about the "rules." It's a different style than your'e describing, but it's very freeing. I used to worry about getting things "wrong" a lot, so it's more fun for me to remember that the rules are just guidelines anyway.
@@BobWorldBuilder yeah but this is D&D not those other fantasy RPGs. There is a reason why the statblocks look the way they do and so much information is being cut already.
You have all the room to improvise. That's the upside of limited information. Nobody's out here saying "wait a second, I thought the froglins had 60ft of darkvision, now you're saying it's 70?!"
@@andresmarrero8666 There isn't A reason, there are *multiple* small reasons that don't affect you 99%. Overall I don't necessarily prefer THIS much minimalism, but his reasonings are either a) pretty generally solid or b) pertain to his specific style of play. His points are pretty well explained even if you don't agree, but some people would rather pretend these things matter if means they can be pedantic in a youtube comment section. What do YOU honestly think is really missing? (to me, ranges are useful if only for reference).
Removing extraneous words from a statblock to improve readability is a good call, but I feel like you've done about %110 of what you should have; having to interpret what the given range on an attack should be, or what save to use for the listed DCs (or if its a Save vs a check) can lead to inconsistent rulings. You may forget you asked for a CHA save against a spell, and ask another player for WIS. Or forget you gave disadvantage on a long rock throw, and roll as normal the second time. The likelihood if that mattering is pretty low, but the higher in level and difficulty the monsters are, the more impactful these small mistakes can be.
@@BobWorldBuilder It stopped being 'subjective' when you suggested it would be a good idea for others to try your method (which you implicitly did by posting it on youtube) and went Way past 'subjective' when you made the blanket statement that WotC 'agrees' with you because of a single instance, despite dozens of obvious counter-examples.
I just wrote a lengthy comment that basically is the same thing. I’m all for the changes here, but removing so much information that the GM is required to make snap-rulings and then expected to remember them all for the sake of consistency is not good design. If I were running a game with these statblocks, I’d likely feel the need to write my rulings on each statblock so I can stay consistent. Would be so much easier if that extra 3-4 characters could already be included by default.
@@BobWorldBuilder i get what you're trying to say, but it's like saying "there is no "should wear a helmet", it's subjective" When holding subjective opinions have objective outcomes, they can be evaluated objectively against an objective metric. You've made it pretty clear that utility is your main metric here, and not having which saves (literally one character) attacks require loses a lot of that utility
I usually agree with those statemebts here, but one thing. I'm often going for a walk after sunset. I usually go into the forest, because there are no people after the dusk. I walk with no light sources, right after the sun goes down but before the fall of night. Thins are visible but not clear. It is why I also like dnd darkvision ranges. When I walk around that forest during a day I can clearly see everything, but when it's dark, when it's loteral dim light all around, I can only see at certain distance. It's not that I don't see anything ahead, but I can say with certainty that if someone would hide in plain sight on my regular road of such walk I would not see that person until certain distance bewteen us.
I can't help but feel this method actually puts more stress on the DM rather than less. It's now on them to keep things consistent, on them to interpret the information, on them to rule on edge cases that crop up and they'll come up a lot because there's fewer specified stats. Which, as a DM, I don't want. I want fewer maybes and less overhead.
Yeah i totally agree. The biggest thing I don't like is the removal of the creature's ability scores/saves. What happens when any of the caster classes cast a spell that requires a save? Does the DM really have to go check the separate (actually complete) statblock just to check the wis/con/dex/whatever save of a creature? we gain nothing by not including the scores and saves and now the DM has to go search for the actual stats any time a caster casts a save-based spell.
I agree as well. It seems to me that what Bob is going for is taking the simplifications from games like shadowdark and icrpg and trying to port them to 5e. I understand the impulse to remove all the strange fiddly bits of the game, and it works well in those other systems. But you can't just do that in one place in the 5e system. Lots of other things in the system use or proc off those fiddly bits. As an experienced DM this is totally your prerogative to do, but I think claiming this is easier for new DMs is a bit misleading. Hacking the system to this extent is an advanced move. I also don't think WOTC should be printing stat blocks for their system that ignore core rules which seems to be what was being advocated for at least in the first video. Also i think if you are going to play fast and lose with distance (which is a totally legit way to play) it cant just be on the GM side. I don't think this is Bob intent to only do this on one side of the screen, but to clarify as advice to new GMs if you are gunna play dark vision and movement speed this way for your monsters you really should play it that way for the PCs as well
@@nickromanthefencer But didnt you hear Bob?? It's EASY to just go into google and find the information! Look, you can search "Goblinoids" and it will bring up all the "Goblinoids"~!! Clearly, this is superior to having that information already-handy, on the stat block.
@@nickromanthefencer My first optimization is to just include the three most common saves and their strongest save if it's an uncommon one. The "defences" line on my compressed statblocks reads "AC 18 DEX 6 CON 2 WIS 6 (STR 9)". This also gives information at a glance as to the general physique of the monster, how it might behave and so on without being overwhelming. HP goes on line 1 solo since I need to write that on my initiative notebook often, and lines after that are heavily compressed attacks (name, to-hit, damage, rider) and abilities (DC magnitude, type, effect)
So this does seem very geared towards theatre of the mind. Exact measurements help with higher tactical based games. I think the section about the creature type doesn't consider the slew of other abilities that are affected by creature type. Divine smite, turn undead, dominate beast/person, etc. While this likely does work for your game, I'll still stand by the original blocks for being more informative.
@@PangoriaFallstar lol what? So the mechanical rules only apply to the players and the DM can just do whatever they want? Nah, the base rules and mechanics should apply equally to both sides; its the most fair way of doing things. The only exception should be specific rules/ mechanics for specific monsters/ encounters.
@@PangoriaFallstar I think my issue with that is it purely leaves the issue up to DM fiat to execute "fun". Shockingly, tactics can be fun. Me performing my monster at the absolute max level possible is fun for me and often fun for players who enjoy tactical play. Those tactics sometime involve outraging the enemy. If the enemy has no range limit, that goes away.
@@Reapor234 yes. The DM already does. If its unfair, the players leave. But the DM can just cover the troll in oil of fire resistance. The DM can take a venom troll stat block, make it into a minotaur with a gore attack, and give it a green dragon breath. As long as its fun, and the players find it engaging, it doesn't matter. If you can't trust your DM, why are they the DM?
In the other video you left a reply under a comment where you agreed and said: "A [full] stat block, and a version of that stat block that I can copy right into my notes and understand in the middle of combat." Maybe its me, but that did not come across back then. I guess thats also why several comments mentioned it. Early in todays video you said, googling something gives a full result in 5 seconds. Thats true, IF the full stat block exists and can be looked up. Under the assumptions that the 5e statblock is too verbose in general and needs trimming in all instances, you dont get the option to google the complete rules, because the rules got cut down and the trimmed stat block is the full ruleset. And I think thats where the frustration came from. I believe people did not read you as "hey my homebrew stat block looks like this" and more like "hey, the game would be better if we practically removed several rules, or made them obscure to look up". Obviously anyone who uses these rules would then object, and that they did.
Yeah... That's how I saw it. I was like "Bob's off his meds again.", because yeah... The changes he made would just make the game more cumbersome for the DM.
I would say the creatures saving throws are important... because players can throw around a vicious mockery and now I'm either just rolling a d20 or I'm making up the bonus. My preference though.
nah, you're right. TONS of abilities and spells require the target to make a specific save, and most of the monsters in the manual have unique saves and stat bonuses that are key to making them actually feel different from each other and not just bags of hit points that deal a set number of damage per turn.
Most monsters have a set bonus to their saves. It’s just their stat + that bonus. Which is very easy to include as a single set number on their block. With the words: Save Bonus.
Maybe we should split D&D...like have a "Basic" version with simpiler stat blocks and other mechanics and an "Advanced" version with more detail and more complex mechanics...nah, it'd never work.
I rather enjoyed the initial and condensed stat blocks from the first video and inspired me to try it out with my own custom monsters. These updates are just bonuses to help clarify the condensed blocks along with this video. Keep up the great work and I hope these changes help you and your custom monsters out!
I know this isnt the point (and also another thin widely complained about) but subtype can be relevant for summoning spells like greater demon as the type is Fiend(Demon). And the starter adventure creatures have one big issue, which i think could come up easily: a kid tries to grapple and you don't know the strength of the creature, or do anything that requires a saving throw
There it is. And yeah, a GM can intuit that a horse-sized frog creature is probably difficult to grapple, but if they think it’s easy, that’s fine too. The PDF teaches the GM basic DCs: 10 easy, 15 medium, 20 extreme. Just pick a number. Anyone can do this.
@BobWorldBuilder The statblocks are simplified for the sake of not overwhelming new DMs. Requiring a new DM to make decisions based on how the system generally works sounds mighty stressful. How is a brand new DM to know how hard grappling a horse sized creature is numerically unless they're familiar with other statblocks which defeats the whole point?
I'm not really sure that this is different from the Bugbear argument, except potentially more stark. If you're looking at a stat block to see if a thing is an Elemental (for example), either your pool of choices is ALREADY things you have reason to think are Elementals OR you don't. If its the latter, it's hideously impractical. If it's the former then either your source has monsters sorted by that info outside of the block ("here are all the Goblins!) OR it would be reasonable for DM to conclude the monster is whatever type based on the logic you're already using.
@@BobWorldBuilder Except it's not... People don't come to a 'learn to play D&D 5e' session to hear someone waffle for two hours about what is essentially their fan-fic about how they think the game's rules should work. They go to those sessions to learn to play D&D 5e, by the rules of that system, because the rules of the system are what differentiate it from literally every other TTRPG out there. Also; This entire stance is Extremely exclusionary of people who don't do well with improv, like this person is telling you they aren't. Some people make perfectly acceptable and fun DMs, because they're able to run games based off of the existing, pre-established rules of the game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a DM who can do well running a pre-made campaign, even if they struggle with improv.
The stat block should use everything you need to know on how to both run the creature and use it in combat without needing to read a long, lengthy description. Goblinoid is a cheap example. Many classes only effect undead and some creatures don't always appear to be undead, such as aberration. Druid wild forms only affect beasts, but not monstrosities. This is an important distinction when balancing druids. It also affects when the party wants talk, rather than murder hobo. It let's them know what language the creature speaks. Lastly, it's in the title. It's not like it's in the actual stats. The DM can say that I need a goblin camp and can quickly identify all goblin types without needing to read into every monster entry to find goblin types.
Note. He's talking about SUB types, not monster types. Undead, beasts and monstrosities are all types, but for a subtype, it'd be something more like... Fiend (Demon).
I can accept many will be happy with the ultra slim-line versions, and I agree with simplification, but for me, I just can't remember details not in front of me and will face option paralysis having to decide on the fly. Maybe it is just my autistic/neuro-diverse brain, but I would much rather some is available but not used, than not available at all.
This is why I wish there were both in-depth and combat streamlined statblocks for all creatures. One to keep thing flowing quickly and one to look up if you forgot something.
Yes, but the point is that if a detail is forgotten (or just not clear in the original statblock), you as the GM are always free to just make up something fun for your group! The stat blocks, like all rules, are just guidelines.
This. This video is still so weird. Solves problems that just aren't there for so many. I guess they are for some, but his stuff is just not useful for me.
3:47 The logic here is that by removing it, new DMs will have to refer to the flavor text or google it to find that information instead of having it easily accessible. This sounds like more work for the DM. Yes, I know it's in the first line of the flavor text, but is that true for every monster? 7:13 How far can that monster move in a turn? Do you think it can fly or swim? Can it see in the dark? Is it immune to any attacks? What kind of creature is it? So they are horse-sized frog people? Does that mean they are large size? Since they are frogs, does cold damage do more to them? How far can they hop? If my players use a spell that requires a Dexterity save, what do I roll? Do you think they can be reasoned with? If a player wants to talk to them, can they speak Common? Are they humanoid like Grung, or are they aberrations like Slaad? This puts a lot more work on the DM. 14:05 Okay, kick or rock? Is the monster swinging the rock in its hand, or is it throwing it? If it's throwing, how far can it throw the rock? If it can't throw the rock, why have a rock if its kick does the same damage?
Regarding the statblocks in Peril in Pinewood: I think there are some important differences between that book and the Player's Handbook or Monster Manual that explain why they chose different statblock designs. Because for me, when I first saw a D&D statblock, I had no problem at all understanding how it works. The creature type, size, alignment, movement speed, ability scores, senses, etc. are all things I already intuitively understand so they did not overwhelm me. The only thing a little confusing to me was the hit points being both one number and a dice notation, but not knowing how that works wasn't really a problem for anything as it still got the idea across. But I was able to figure all this out because of my demographic: I'm a nerd and I have time for this kind of stuff (which I imagine goes for most people who play D&D). But as you said, the book you brought up was written for teachers, a demographic which I imagine has far less time at their disposal. The statblocks in that book are much faster to read than the bigger vanilla ones, which take a good 10-20 seconds. Which is completely fine by me, but less fine for teachers. And why are they faster to read? No, not because they abbreviate everything like you did. Having to look up what abbreviations like "A" or "RC" stand for would only take more time. No, it's because the monsters themselves are simple, because these monsters serve only one specific purpose in one specific campaign. Egg snatchers probably won't have to make an intelligence check in the game, so indeed might as well leave that out to save time. But monsters in the Monster Manual can be used in any campaign, encountered by any character, and interacted with in any way so you just need more information, even if most of it is unused most of the time. In short: they simplified the entire game in that book, so yeah the statblocks would be simpler as well then.
So, sure, I get it, HP, AC, and Damage, that's all you really need and you can do everything with that and improvise the rest. I've done it. I have 36 years experience and yeah, ezpz. But... when I buy a book from WotC or Kobold Press or someone else, I prefer complete stat blocks. I just ran a session where knowing stats that weren't AC, HP, and Damage helped because my players did a pacifist run through a dungeon! And sure, I could have hand waved everything for rule of cool, but they loved rolling for it, and loved knowing they "earned" it with the planning they put in and I wasn't just "giving" it to them because I thought it was cool. Regardless, published adventures *should* contain as much information as the system demands from it. I do *NOT* want to be flipping around for the monster stats. The ONLY reason stat blocks are the way they are is to save on printing costs. But, having short stat blocks isn't bad. It works if your group expects it to worth that way. However... Are shorter stat blocks better? I say no. The design and presentation are important, but the size of the stat block serves a different purpose. The purpose? Printing space. I contend that overall, more people would be happier with a larger stat block over something small and minimalist. The goal is to improve design and presentation. Case in point: RC. I've been playing for 36 years, and I've DM'ed every edition (and many non-D&D games as well) and I didn't realize that was recharge until you mentioned it. Yes, obvious in hindsight, but with the goal of "picking up a stat block and knowing how to use it" RC failed me. However, Recharge would have worked better and been more clear. RC is what? R*** Class? I don't know, but most everything else with 2 letters is 2 words, and A for attack is one word, so... I was confused. But Recharge? ezpz. So why not give it more room to breath? Why obsess over a few letters? The issue isn't that stat blocks are large or small. It's that they aren't treated with the same love and care many character sheets are treated. They are just treated as splats of text. And I get it, there is a lot of history there with stat blocks. But I contend that's not because they are good, but rather, the best people could come up with years ago. Instead of focusing on the size, focus on the presentation and design. You wanted something small. I want something useful. One sets criteria in terms of some objective thing that can be achieved. 10 lines is better than 15 lines is better than 20. But is it? Really? I'd argue that instead of limiting ourselves to traditional stat blocks, it would serve us better to instead focus on rethinking it completely. Remove the limitations publishers have and instead say "how would I design monster sheet instead." So that everything is in the same place every time, use visual indicators to guide GMs, and present all the information needed without feeling cluttered. I tend to not like shorter stat blocks in published works, but routinely use it for myself. However, I think what you really nailed on here is that current stat blocks aren't the best they can be. Personally, I think the white 3-ring-binder-based D&D monster books were the best monster books ever. Made photocopying monsters easier, made it easy to remove monsters to prep and put them back as needed. Made it easy add new monsters to the binder. That was someone who really cared about the DM designing not just the stat blocks, but the entire experience. That's what we should go back to. Sorry this is long. I think your arguments are great for your table. I think this really sparks an interesting conversation beyond just stat blocks, but about making things easier to run in general. I foresee an experience where you have a full stat block well designed, and on that very sheet, it might provide the "short stat block" as well that can be inserted as needed, best of both worlds. That all being said, a loot table for monsters with the monsters would be great!
DMs should use a shorthand for copying stat blocks into their notes, but I expect published stat blocks to contain all the information, no matter how rare the use case is because in instances where those cases come up, it shouldn't be difficult to find the answer. Also, while the use case might be rare according to RAW, there are always new abilities being published or homebrewed that could make use of those bits of information. Also, I know you prefer theater of the mind combat, but precise information such as where a giant frog is summoned is important to DMs who run a much more tactical game.
"Most hated" video equals. . . 92% approval, LOL, that subversion of setup expectations. And you doxed your hidey-hole! Oh, Bob, you goblinoid-cryptid, you! There are good ideas in both of your videos on this. When I copy stat-blocks down in my notes for play, they are always much shortened and terse -- and when I have multiple similar creature types, I won't even recopy their shared stat info, I'll just write that info in black-ink and use different color ink for the parts of their stats that differ, so I have one stat-block that contains multiple creatures of the same family without any redundancy.
I really liked the first video. It reminded me of a research paper and how my supervisor cleaned up all the redundant text until information was crystal clear. Knowledge happens between two channels. The text needs to be clear and the person needs to comprehend it.
We're running into an issue in Avernus with a brand new gm where we aren't sure what is considered a "humanoid" for the purposes of a hexblade's accursed specter ability. In this case, the statblock as written is actually _missing_ information (as opposed to having redundant info), but it fits in with that "subtype" issue brought up near the beginning of the video
Simplified "Combat" Statblocks belong in-line with the adventure text and descriptions of tactics and phases(if applicable). The larger statblocks belong in the back of the book with the complete information.
1 cool thing to add to your homebrew rule is to have your player having a monster encyclopedia. They can role intelligent check to learn more about the creatures they just encountered and copy parts or all of the monster stat block to their encyclopedia
The positive community and content is part of why I love this channel XD and we all do things we think or gold then in hindsight wish we could change =) I took inspiration from the "stat" blocks in temple of elemental evil where ac, hp, and stat were just typed on on line along with atk and dmg. Very condensed.
I have been DMing for several years and personally never had trouble with reading lenghty stat blocks, but I find myself agreeing with basically everything you say in the video, especially for newer DMs. Streamlining means taking detail away and some of the comments see that as a negative, but you beautifully show how rough outlines can be used to kickstart creativity, evne on a statblock. Getting rid of every little descriptor invites improvisation of attacks and abilities that I would have frankly never thought about in the more detailed original version. I will never understand people getting upset or angry for you ... trying to help people and streamlining the process? Love the video, keep up the good work!
Love this project. And you're totally on the right track. I love RPGs with stripped down, easy-to-run stat blocks. An example from 13th Age, which is a great spin on trad DnD: Minotaur Large 4th level troop [humanoid] Initiative: +8 Axe or horns +9 vs. AC-27 damage, and one of the minotaur’s allies can pop free from the target as a free action Furious charge: The attack instead deals 40 damage on a hit if the minotaur first moves before attacking an enemy it was not engaged with at the start of its turn. Blood frenzy: Minotaurs gain a +4 melee attack bonus against staggered enemies. Nastier Specials Durable: The first time each round the minotaur takes damage, prevent 2d6 of it. Fear: While engaged with this creature, enemies that have 24 hp or fewer are dazed (-4 attack) and do not add the escalation die to their attacks. HP 94 AC 19 PD 17 MD 13 An example from Dragonbane, a great OSR-adjacent game I'm currently running: Minotaur Ferocity: 2 Size: Large Movement: 16 Armor: - HP: 32 Typical Gear: Two-handed axe D6 ATTACK 1 Bull Fist! A furry fist hits a player character with full force. The attack inflicts 2D6 bludgeoning damage and leaves the victim Dazed, even if their armor prevents any damage. 2 Hoof Kick! Using its powerful legs, the minotaur kicks the victim with its hooves. The force of the attack throws the victim 2D6 meters away and inflicts the same amount of bludgeoning damage. The victim lands prone. 3 Horn Rush! The minotaur lowers its head and rushes toward two adventurers within 2 meters of each other, hoping to impale them with its sharp horns. Both victims suffer 2D8 piercing damage and are knocked down. 4 Cleaving Chop! The beast swings its weapon over its head and brings it down with full force. The attack inflicts weapon damage plus an extra D10, and can be parried. 5 Sweeping Attack! The minotaur roars and sweeps its weapon in a wide arc, hitting everyone within 2 meters. The attack inflicts weapon damage. 6 Stomping Attack! The minotaur jumps high in the air and comes crashing down on an adventurer, who suffers 2D10 bludgeoning damage and is knocked down.
I absolutely love your moving around the sewer drain, great camera placement, really jazzed it up my guy. Good content as well, I agree with you on your thesis as well.
I think this all boils down to the intended purpose of the statblock. If we're just talking a shortened version of the full monster info to be used as a reference in combat...then all you need is AC, HP, attacks, any *relevant* special abilities for combat, and maybe a note on what tactics the creature typically uses. Everything else can stay in the monster manual. That's a far cry different than making changes to the overall information provided for the monster's main entry.
And these are things GM's often do themselves for quick reference sheets, it's often included on printable initiative trackers. The thing is that it's often not enough information once you get out of the first couple levels and start running into monsters with special abilities and passive effects so you keep going back to the normal statblock which will thankfully have that information. Bob wants to turn what should basically be the bare necessities for a short improvised encounter with simple monsters or one that the GM already prepared in advance by studying the block beforehand into the default method of listing all monster stats.
@@Tomeroche yeah, I prep by putting vital stats on 3x5 note cards. They work as statblock, initiative tracker, HP tracker, everything... And you're right, at higher levels (especially playing Pathfinder 1e), a short stat block ain't gonna cut it for more than your basic minions. Book stats need to be detailed, and include all the specific info. Ranges, areas of effect, any interactions of note, special ability details, and monster tactics. Plus the fluff.
@@Tomeroche Fair enough. I see your point. I guess ultimately it comes down to how one does game preparation. Myself, I've run entire sessions without ever grabbing a Monster Manual... Much like in the modules I grew up with (80's...) any info you need to run a monster was written right there, and I write my adventures the exact same way. I'm not claiming to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all monster stats but, I really only ever reach for one when I have to make an important judgement call...
New DM here, I'm subscribing thanks to this vid. You made me think of a lot of things that never really came to mind before and now I'll be able to really focus on information that is truly important while I am running my campaign. Great work, I'm looking forward to more!
I like having more detailed stat blocks. Having a short and abbreviated block can leave to questions that especially a newer DM may not know what to do. These more detailed blocks are there to be guidelines too. Nothing in these types of games is set in stone. I am not opposed to you or other DM's using this style, but I know it is not my cup of tea. Thanks for continuing to have interesting videos Bob.
While I have no issue with the change your logic for omitting subtype clashes with your logic for alignment/size. Since information not given will be assumed to be the default value, without being given a subtype we will just assume a humanoid creature is the default humanoid (presumably human.) Flavor text outside of the statblock may not be read/ignored. Relatively niche to come up, I agree, but where relevant we're now just assuming default values for subtypes which can be mechanically relevant. Especially when the DM is caught unaware and now is caught between trying to be mechanically fair and keeping the scene going.
Love this Bob! Even though I run a pretty different game to you, this is going to revolutionize how I print out my stat blocks for my games. I'm definitely going to adapt ideas from this into my own stat block template. I especially love the short blurb at the top. Having that would actually be really helpful, since it can be pretty hard to remember the differences between certain monsters, especially for new GMs (Manticores and Chimeras for instance).
The fallacy of the "wall at the end of sight" since our vision degrades over distance until it is ineffective. It does not simply stop at some invisible barrier. Nicely said and explained!
I really enjoyed your previous video on streamlining stat blocks. I don't see why people would feel the need to quibble with you over the "one true way" to communicate info (every GM is different). The value I see in these videos is to get people thinking about what they find efficient, what works best for them at their table, and what changes they would make. We are all different people, everyone has their own theories, and that's awesome. I love your videos because they get me thinking about my own game.
@@BobWorldBuilder I also read "Peril In Pinebrook", and while they could have been less wordy outlining the adventure, the stat blocks are refreshingly simple, ...even the ones for pregenerated characters.
Your paired down stats & attacks for monsters of just the name, modifier, and damage dice is how I've been condensing all of my encounters into post-its for years. I have a single line or two of description for myself, in my notes, but the post-its are on my DM screen and can hold all my encounters for sometimes multiple sessions on just one to two. The flavorful descriptions and wall of info is great and a fun read when going through the monster manual for inspiration, but when you're behind the screen those descriptions are yours to play with and mold. How best to convey an umberhulk breaching the surface and assaulting your party depends on the group, the location, the tone - but that hit is stagnant data and its all you need when you're actually running the session. Amazing video Bob.
I think its important in the stat block attacks to write out "Action" "Bonus Action" "Reaction." It was the only thing I didn't immediately understand. I looked and saw A and it didn't click. If I had never played before, I think I'd either be confused or ignore the (A). With a video to explain it immediately makes sense but just looking at paper I'm not so sure
In my opinion - the thing that you're missing about the 'bloat' in those statblocks, is that extra padding is what provides flavour. eg.. Displaying the STR score of a mighty monster gives more flavour than just a modifer (eg STR 20 conveys "oooh that guy is strong" or INT 5 "ooooh that guy dumb). Sure the modifer gives the same DATA but TTRPGs is an exercise of imagination not data. And .. in my opinion.. there is more perceived difference between a 18 score vs 20 score than +4 vs +5. I can skim read the stat block of a monster in the 5e Monster Manual or Flee Mortals and get a sense of the flavour of that creature without having to dive into the text above it. I'm glad that you as an experienced DM can get a post-it note of numeric data and that's all you need to run a meaningful encounter. It's great that works for you. And I've no doubt, based on your channel's content that your games are immersive, imaginative experiences. But I strongly disagree that your version of the stat block that you're advocating in these videos should be the norm in published material. Yeah, maybe it's more functional... I guess??? .. but it sucks the joy out of those books as a standalone text. I skim read those books for inspiration for my next adventures and if it was just numbers I wouldn't pick the book up in the first place.
Hot take, the extra text creates open design space, things like size, speed, subtype, ect gives more space to create different creatures that feel different mechanically.
@BobWorldBuilder I feel a similar way about damage types in 5e, like it feels like their only purpose is to increase the amount of spells, slash to make weapons diffent then each other, but mechanically do nothing different, but I am torn if that means I want them to do unique things or not? Like would it be better if all slashing attacks reduced speed and all bludgeoning attacks had knockback? However this rant is off the topic at hand.... I think I like the hybrid approach of a small stat block with a mm reference number to look things up as needed?
Our imagination has infinite design space! Check out EVERYTHING IS A BEAR by Alone in The Labyrinth All you need is the bear stat block for anything really
HOW DARE YOU insinuate that GMs and players should use their imaginations and fill in gaps in texts?!! Heresy!!! There must be a rule for everything or else Chaos will reign!!! For real though, I love you, man. Thank you for advocating for more FUN in RPGs.
Bob, super cool video, and I'm on board with simplified stat blocks, but that hole definitely has an evil clown in it somewhere at the back, in the darkness, so maybe find somewhere else to live.
Great video boss. My terrible ADHD and dyslexia are soothed with the streamlined stat blocks. love your ideas around writing the stat blocks in notes as a truncated box.
Good stuff, and fully agreed. I have gone over to Shadowdark and the short concise and punchy stat blocks have brought back some of the joy to my session prep and are much easier to reference in game.
Thanks Bob! I think these are great ideas. I'm a little confused on where multi attack would go if a creature has it. If Bob or someone else wants to explain that to me I'd appreciate it.
I doubt he would want it, as to him, it seems that any statblock that's longer than like, 2 abilities and a single attack is too long. God forbid the statblock even include ability scores or saves..
What I can say is this: if you are aiming to gut the flavor and make things more concise, you are cutting the reason to play D&D. If I need to rely on my imagination, I won't bother with D&D. My group and I will just joke around with system-free ideas. We go to the system for mechanics, rules & flavor that we can then use or ignore as we see fit. Having it in the stat block saves us the work the might need to do.
I need subtypes right there bc I allow all characters to make a 'know your enemy' bonus action once per encounter to see if they know something particular about it.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY Once per encounter and after rolling initiative, PCs can attempt to identify aspects of the enemy as a bonus action. Regardless of outcome, once attempted, PCs may only try again after a long rest representing later contemplation, experience, study or investigation. DC is 7+ creature’s CR. No DC may be lower than 10 or higher than 30. Beating base DC = 1 aspects known. Beating DC by 5 = 2 aspects known and beating DC by 8+ = 3 aspects known. Depending on the creature type, different skills are used to identify each. The player must have proficiency in at least one of the following skills per enemy type; Aberration | Arcana Beast | Animal Handling, Nature, or Survival Celestial | Arcana or Religion Construct | Arcana Dragon | Arcana, History, or Nature Elemental | Arcana or Nature Fey | Arcana or Nature Fiend | Arcana or Religion Giant | History Humanoid | History Monstrosity | Nature or Survival Ooze | Arcana or Survival Plant | Nature or Survival Undead | Arcana or Religion On a success, the player may choose from the following aspects to know; Creature type AC Alignment Hit Dice Speed(s) Ability scores Saving throws (all) Skills (can ask for top 3) Vulnerabilities Resistances & immunities Extra senses Languages CR Special traits Attacks/reactions Limited use Equipment
Mothman is definitely coming out of that drain pipe... I'm still for keeping the base numbers for the stat blocks, but then my homebrew borrows from Five Torches Deep (i.e. those numbers have real effects). There's where I'd make an arguement for keeping extraneous/redundant data - if I'm designing a baddie and I want it to be useable in multiple systems. If you're sticking to using them in just one system and that system doesn't need that granularity, I'm all for dumping the data you don't need and keeping what you do. The stat blocks in my homebrew aren't much different than yours, actually...
You know what I don't need to have more fun in D&D? The constant plane updates. (And yeah, I am a professional location recordist and editor. I know why you don't want the plane noise, but just edit the bad takes out like a normal person. This was amusing the first two times, now it's just... inefficient.) Also, I love you. ♥
2:20... Yah, and ya _failed_ on that point is what we're saying. With a sample D&D stat block, you can slap the stat block down... JUST the stat block... in front of _any_ player, and they have ALL the rules they could possibly need to play as that creature, without having to look for other resources or GUESS on ANYTHING, no matter _what_ situation that creature is in, or what mechanical lever related to it is being pulled on. (EDIT: At worst, you will need to look up what the spells the creature can cast do; but that's IT.) But since you seem hung up that this specific example was used; How about Moonbeam vs a Shapechanger? Besides that, what if you wanted to brew a magical item that does something like, I don't know, glows while in the presence of orcs? Or repels specifically devils, but not necessarily demons or any other kind of fiend? As for the pared down statblocks in PiP, look at the context for the rest of that adventure. The whole thing is pared down, and is an EXTREMELY controlled experience. The pregen character sheets also don't have any visible ability scores or modifiers, saving throws, skills that aren't the thing the character is proficient in, the casters each get one spell that they can do twice for the whole game, and anything that requires a roll that isn't a d6 or a d20 just takes the average roll, because the adventure is meant to be run as a baby game for babies, and there's _no_ flexibility in the adventure _at all._
Bob... I think you did a better job explaining why the Ranger's Favored Enemy ability is kinda useless than you did defending your original stat block changes. 😏 The new stat blocks are definitely better. I said on the first video that I wanted something that was kinda between yours and the official version and I think you've done a good job of accomplishing that. Well done!
Over simplification is as bad as over complexification. I strongly feel that the MM books should have complete stat blocks. BUT they should also include simplified stat blocks as examples to use for GM (young or experienced). Monsters/foes should be presented as we are used to see them, then at the end, photocopiable sheets with condensed stat block could be made available. This way, a DM could print these on card boards, cut them and use the "summarized" stats while (if needed) the full stat blocks are still present in the book, available for consultation in case the need arise. It would only add a few pages but would add a big quality of life. It would also show young GM how prep is usefull for a game while allowing free form to be readily available.
You could even use these simplified sheets to show monsters that work well together. Like having goblins, hobgoblin, bugbears, wolves and worgs as simplified statblocks on the same sheet to easily reference monsters used together in an encounter.
@@BobWorldBuilder Sure, but at some point, too little will hamper understanding and efficiency. A middle ground can and should be reached. You and I (and any experienced GM) probably don't even need the stat blocs at all even for the most "complex" critters in the DMG. But that is not the case for every GM out there. I have coached a lot of young DM/GM over the years and too little is really a thing and too much is also a thing. The middle ground is to create "dual" stat blocs where you have a complete one and streamlined ones at the end. I often give this advice to new GM and once they start doing it, their game improves a lot. They still need to access the full stat bloc from time to time as a way to remind them some little snippets, but overall, it does help. A complete stat block would be like AD&D (1ed) and a streamlined one looks a lot like Shadow Dark (which is exactly how I streamline myself and how I show young GM how to do).
I think I'm one of the few that agreed with you from the beginning, I absolutely hate having to read so much just to get to what I need to know and I think even some spells could benefit from shortening some text
I've even seen the argument to condense saves on custom stat blocks to 1 of 3 words. A monster is either Tough (good Str, Con saves) Agile (good dex saves) or Wise (Good wis, int saves.) And you can leave it with that until you actually have to make then save then just add a value that feels right.
@@secretlyaslug2325 stat blocks should have built-in personality that the DM is free to ignore, not basic, flavorless barebones info that *requires* the DM to make snap judgements. What is a DM actually paying for if they have to constantly make up their own rules on the fly? the whole point of a book is to let a DM just follow what's in it.
If not listing damage type means I can desperately try to convince the DM that anything that breaks skin is technically piercing damage, then I’m all for it.
I really like your style! I'd love a game that's similar in rules to Shadowdark but with less focus on gritty dungeons and darkness, and more on weird magic and travels. The obvious name for this hack should be Shadowlight 🤣
Two points about subtypes: 1. They can be useful for categorisation in things like books and D&D Beyond. 2. There are groups where it can be important, for example whether a Fiend is a Devil, a Demon or a Yugoloth, most descriptions do say but a subtype is quicker to read (Especially somewhere like D&D Beyond where the descriptions aren't automatically shown but subtypes are) and some descriptions do lack it.
The way you write these things reminds me of older D&D stat blocks for creatures. It was really good for quickly adding new monsters on random encounter tables or referencing them to make those tables. The treasure drops is really a time saver too. Awesome.
i'd like to say i love the positivity you try to stick to. i actually actively search for positive content and cut out the negativity, and i'm happy to say you make the cut. I HEARTILY AGREE that the clearly issue is that what and why information is on the stat block was not properly defined. with that said "you're wrong because i say so" isn't really an argument. sharing your own preferences to maybe show other people what they could do is a great way to teach world building so yeah thanks for sharing your methods and preferences. i personally treat a stat blocks like creature cards, so if i have reference a book for more details when i have a stat block, there is not enough info on it for me, but if i ONLY used it for how to use them in combat your method might work better for me.
I honestly still disagree that this extremely slimed down version would be helpful to new GMs. While I do think a lot of stat blocks are overly wordy and can definitely be paired down. The hardest part for me is always when I encounter something that is explained somewhere else in the book and I have to go look it up. I have a very difficult time holding all of the information in my head at once. Its also a bit of a leap imo to say a new GM would be able to intuit what +4 (1d6+4) means without some experience playing dnd before. And as someone who uses maps and enjoys battle tactics movement speed is useful. I do get that this is mostly for how you run games, but you are pitching this as something for everyone, and you can't eliminate base mechanics of the game if that's the case. I don't mean for this to come off as mean or anything just explaining my position
I agree with you. I do concur that shortening stat block can be done, and should be done - but requiring a forward to 'decode' a monster does not help an old or new GM. These monster blocks still need easily identifiable keywords to intuit what each item means. Shortening the description, abilities, senses, movement, and general abilities is done perfectly with little impact to the game. Thus, I think Bob is 90% of the way there - but went overboard with the actions. Using the 5e stat blocks as our reference point, please RE-ADD keywords/shorthand to your actions. Example: **Actions Kick/Rock. Melee. To Hit: +4 On Hit: 5 (1d4+2) bludgeoning Tongue. Ranged - Near. DC 12 ??Save type?? - Grappled, froglin pulled to target. Croaking Chant. Recharge 6. chanting with 5 other froglins summons 1 *Giant Frog* **Bonus Actions Slippery. disengage or hide **Reactions Poison Skin. When touched, target makes a DC 12 con save or be poisoned, with repeat saves to end. Each item remains 1-ish line, but is much easier to parse. It uses identifies that are short, and can be copied from monster to monster for easy, quick referencing. Is the entire thing longer? Yes, but by an insignificant amount of space. How many monsters are you fitting on a print out anyways? Using the classic 5e monster stat blocks I regularly get ~6 stat blocks on a single page, which is honestly all I need for single encounter. Thus, I dont need to shrink the stat blocks because my entire encounter is already on one page.
Didn't notice until the end of the video, but I love that a brief physical description merited a spot on this minimalist stat block; that plus the loot really drive home what the opportunity cost of including a bunch of not-particularly-useful things can be.
That first scenario: Same thing, but against a major Bugbear boss and the ranger has an Arrow of Goblin Slaying. Fun missed out on; The cost of the 'Very Rare' magic item, and a loss of 6d10 damage. I stand by my original thoughts on your suggestions for the 5e stat block redesign. It's not a bad idea if the DM, for some reason, wants to write down their own version of the statblock. It's a terrible idea for a mass-produced game that is literally over-designed to be as easy to understand at a casual glance as possible. Yes, some of the information is unnecessary, or redundant, but that can all be placed on the stat blocks being standardized across all monsters. If the stat blocks are standardized, then specific odd cases where the minutia matters (like whether or not specific monsters have a specific subtype) can be more easily interpreted in terms of whether or not some key information being excluded was intentional for mechanical reasons. Anyone who has played the hobby long enough, and at enough tables, can tell you how important 'rules as written vs. rules as intended' is for some people. D&D, with its multiple editions and long history of rules-lawyer players, would know this lesson better than most. With popularity comes a wide diversity of players, and a game that has a player base many times over your entire view count, and literal decades of marketing data to draw upon, will likely have a far better basis for stating "This stat block was created with the benefit of the most players possible in mind" than anything you've ever produced on this channel could ever hope to achieve. *Addendum: Listing exactly 1 of the beginner adventures produced for D&D 5e as proof that WotC 'agrees with you', when you know full well there are many more that give full stat blocks for all of their creatures, is incredibly disingenuous of you and you know it.
Yeah, this video really just felt like a lot of "Well that's just like... my opinion, man..." instead of understanding why people had the criticisms they did. The weird flip-flopping on whether or not his opinion was actually subjective, or if this would be better than the statblocks we have was really annoying.
Im gonna be honest, i really dont agree with your creature type (goblinoid) argument. Its a single small wordt next to the creature size. A thing not even that quickly seen and one can easily ignore it as you wont be looking it over that much any al the way on the top of the stat block. Its a thing i like to be there so you can look it up if it does come up, becouse just becouse it doesnt happen often there are rules for it. So imagine if you do have something that uses it but now the DM has to look through the more bloated information section you now also have to make ordered becouse i need to know the same types of info of each creature.
8:10 that's the thing some people have hindered one, that's why they demand vervose so they can replicate. On the subject of the video, masterfully excecuted, and thanks for the streamlined form. And the cryptid is a Worldbuilder, know for dragging their prey into other planes
💥 James RPG Art! www.patreon.com/jamesrpgart
Love the art, hate how we've already gotten to the point where we have to emphasize that the art was made by a human.
I would argue a short, consize statblock should be printed in the actual module, when a monster/creature, npc is referenced and the detailed statblock can stay at the end of the book if any ruling questions appear.
The short stat block should have the page number of the detailed one near its beginning or end, to make that more useful.
I think people should probably know that Matt Colville was recently experimenting with putting all the stats of a monster for MCDMRPG on a *single line*. That way a whole encounter can be five lines of stats with special abilities written under it. Tactical depth and concise writing are not incompatible!
Man I would pin this comment if I didn't have a sponsor. That might rock some folks' world haha
@@BobWorldBuilder Hopefully they have a decent version of their "encounter sheet" done for the play test in late July or August.
Plenty of AD&D and OSR products out there that do that as well; if your stat block only has a little bit of combat-relevant information, there's no reason for it to take up half a page. I expect MCDMRPG won't go that direction ultimately, though; those sorts of stat blocks are great for running snappy, mechanics-light combats where the results are determined largely by the initial conditions and player ingenuity; they're less good for running big setpiece encounters where the combat itself is meant to be fun, rather than being a high-stakes backdrop in which players are meant to find their own fun.
DCC does this pretty well
Experimenting. Because it is incompatible. You can’t have a statblock that is both concise and detailed enough for meaningful tactical decisions. At least not across all levels of knowledge. Without causing the dm to have to spend time looking through books or wikis or forums trying to figure out how that specific thing works or means
Bob World Builder DESTROYS haters with WELL CONSTRUCTED, persuasive case for simplified stat blocks and trademark affable demeanor!! Point 6 will SHOCK you (9/10 dentists hate him) 💯💯💀💀
Those 9 dentists probably want you grinding your teeth to some aggressive response videos. Unfortunately Bob is just too laid back.
I love your videos man
💖Thanks man :)
We must've watched different videos. What I got out of it was that Bob World Builder is a Froglin living in a hole in a plane infested forest...
Dentists HATE him! 😂
The long stat block has its place in the encyclopedic Monster Manual, but short & concise stat blocks should be used in published adventures as a way for DMs not to lose themselves when flipping from one place to another.
Now this I agree with. The information should always be accessible WITHOUT HAVING TO FUCKING FOOGLE IT. But it doesn’t always have to be directly presented to your face. The Monster Manual should be where you go to GET all the crazy details you don’t necessarily NEED all the time but may want or need OCCASIONALLY. But in DM notes or in an adventure, stick to the basics. It should fit on an index card, or a couple of cards for creatures with spells or special abilities.
@@TxSonofLiberty 1) published adventures should always have small stat blocks, so DMs don't have to keep more than 1 book open to run a session.
2) TL;DR?
Wait. In order to avoid the DM getting lost while flipping between multiple books, you think that the information should be split between multiple books?
Have the full stat block every time one of those creatures comes up in an adventure. Then you'll never even have to flip.
@@nitePhyyre No. My point is that big stat blocks should be in the Monster Manual, while the small stat blocks Bob is arguing for should be in the published adventure, where you only need the most minimalist data necessary for play.
@@jgr7487 So, you think that the big stat block should be in one book and some of if that info should be split off into another book, but you don't think that is splitting the information into multiple books?
Your ideas are great if you want a rules-light system with infinite flexibility. Some people like crunchy systems, and some people prefer being able to reference rules when questions come up in combat... especially with players who prefer to see things backed up in rules. Those people aren't going to like a slimmer stat block. Personally, I want something in the middle... a stat block that gives good detail but is easy to reference.
Bingo. It's subjective!
For me, the biggest problem with 5e statblocks is that they have too much prose, making them too hard to read quickly (which is also the same problem I have with pre-written adventures). I agree that we should try a compromise statblock. I don't like "+4 (1d6 + 2)" but I also don't like "This creatures makes a melee attack with its claws, with a +4 to hit, dealing 1d6 + 2 slashing damage on hit". In my opinion, something like "Melee attack with claws: +4 to hit, 1d6 + 2 slashing damage" is best. Prose isn't always bad, but I think it should be reserved for when something differs from the norm.
Statblocks should be written like MTG cards. Mechanical information should never be left out, but prose should only be used to explain exceptions, not in every single attack.
Bob I do love that you at least acknowledged the error of exposing your back to an empty dark opening shows your awareness to the real world. Love your videos brother
I like complicated stat blocks that make combat interesting if they're done right! (D&D4e is a great example)
- Don't use natural language, use short hand to bring down wordiness
- Don't reference other places in the book (spells for example), have everything we need already there
- Don't give me redundant information
- Just does stuff, I shouldn't have to save for everything (monsters don't live long enough to fail their own action saves)
Thats why I feel 5e and others stat blocks tend to suck. They're big with cool abilities (a plus) but they're also filled with a ton of UNHELPFUL information that's either redundant or fluff, weighing down the final product
Also you really don't need super long and complex stat blocks, because unique encounters are much more easily produced through the power of combinatorics.
Having three stat blocks in one encounter that are each relatively low complexity, but that are unique and have synergy with other stat block and combat roles will make combat super dynamic and memorable once you use them together, and will do so without overloading the DM.
The key thing is monster roles, and giving them 1-2 roles to fulfill their role.
I also agree with all of the points you make about the actual stat block design.
Very true but I disagree on "don't reference other places in the book", once I'm familiar with the system that really streamlines things
4e sucks ass and there’s a reason it got nowhere near as big as 5e
Trduvang Chronicles is the perfect example of this, big (really BIG) stat blocks, but all the information is concrete and useful.
@@noambruh big stat blocks are still gonna slow things down regardless of how concise they are
I have to say I disagree with the subtype one, because yes that example for bugbears isn't something that might come up, other types do come up more commonly: construct, undead, fey, fiend, and such all pop up in a few spells and other mechanics. Sure you can hand wave that off, but it is pretty useful to have that fairly ready.
Edit: Including it with that descriptor sentence in your stat block is a good approach
Edit 2: The loot is absolutely amazing add, nice
Something very important is to remember you don't have to take into account just official stuff but the likelihood of someone wanting to use these sorts of tags and information for homebrew stuff too.
None of those are subtypes, they’re just types
It’s two different things
Not only do you not understand what you're talking about, you did not even pay attention to the part of the video that you're responding to
Do you think that for animated armor it says 'medium humanoid (construct)'?
Hold monster vs hold humanoid on a vampire, bane of my existence
I think the Goblinoid just happened to be a bad example to use as it hardly ever comes up. A better example for a subtype to bring up would have been Shapechanger as multiple spells and effects (True Sight, Moonbeam, etc.) deal with it.
That ultra concise block almost gave me an anxiety attack!
You do you, but I absolutely *hate* incomplete information, *especially* when I'm new to a game. As a player it feels like it leaves me open to mistakes
and as a DM I want to know how much room I have to improvise, without accidentally retconning something that could lead to complications later.
Yes! While I agree that the wording for 5E's stat blocks often needs editing for clarity and concision, I find all the mechanical info necessary and helpful. Overall, I LIKE the 5E stat blocks and hate the minimalist approach - inevitably they would force me to chase down some piece of information that otherwise would've been there.
I think the 5E approach to simply bolding creature's names in adventures works wonderfully, with any new/non-core stat blocks included in the back.
I hear ya, but part of what I'm saying is that the "incomplete" block is what the "complete" stat blocks look for other fantasy RPGs. And fewer rules = fewer mistakes, bc there are fewer rules to forget or "get wrong." But most importantly, even the D&D 5e core books tell the GM to make up whatever they want, and not worry about the "rules." It's a different style than your'e describing, but it's very freeing. I used to worry about getting things "wrong" a lot, so it's more fun for me to remember that the rules are just guidelines anyway.
@@BobWorldBuilder yeah but this is D&D not those other fantasy RPGs. There is a reason why the statblocks look the way they do and so much information is being cut already.
You have all the room to improvise. That's the upside of limited information.
Nobody's out here saying "wait a second, I thought the froglins had 60ft of darkvision, now you're saying it's 70?!"
@@andresmarrero8666 There isn't A reason, there are *multiple* small reasons that don't affect you 99%. Overall I don't necessarily prefer THIS much minimalism, but his reasonings are either a) pretty generally solid or b) pertain to his specific style of play. His points are pretty well explained even if you don't agree, but some people would rather pretend these things matter if means they can be pedantic in a youtube comment section. What do YOU honestly think is really missing? (to me, ranges are useful if only for reference).
Removing extraneous words from a statblock to improve readability is a good call, but I feel like you've done about %110 of what you should have; having to interpret what the given range on an attack should be, or what save to use for the listed DCs (or if its a Save vs a check) can lead to inconsistent rulings. You may forget you asked for a CHA save against a spell, and ask another player for WIS. Or forget you gave disadvantage on a long rock throw, and roll as normal the second time. The likelihood if that mattering is pretty low, but the higher in level and difficulty the monsters are, the more impactful these small mistakes can be.
There is no "should have." This is subjective.
@@BobWorldBuilder It stopped being 'subjective' when you suggested it would be a good idea for others to try your method (which you implicitly did by posting it on youtube) and went Way past 'subjective' when you made the blanket statement that WotC 'agrees' with you because of a single instance, despite dozens of obvious counter-examples.
I just wrote a lengthy comment that basically is the same thing. I’m all for the changes here, but removing so much information that the GM is required to make snap-rulings and then expected to remember them all for the sake of consistency is not good design. If I were running a game with these statblocks, I’d likely feel the need to write my rulings on each statblock so I can stay consistent. Would be so much easier if that extra 3-4 characters could already be included by default.
@@BobWorldBuilder That is an objectively wrong statement.
@@BobWorldBuilder i get what you're trying to say, but it's like saying "there is no "should wear a helmet", it's subjective"
When holding subjective opinions have objective outcomes, they can be evaluated objectively against an objective metric. You've made it pretty clear that utility is your main metric here, and not having which saves (literally one character) attacks require loses a lot of that utility
I usually agree with those statemebts here, but one thing.
I'm often going for a walk after sunset. I usually go into the forest, because there are no people after the dusk. I walk with no light sources, right after the sun goes down but before the fall of night. Thins are visible but not clear. It is why I also like dnd darkvision ranges. When I walk around that forest during a day I can clearly see everything, but when it's dark, when it's loteral dim light all around, I can only see at certain distance. It's not that I don't see anything ahead, but I can say with certainty that if someone would hide in plain sight on my regular road of such walk I would not see that person until certain distance bewteen us.
I can't help but feel this method actually puts more stress on the DM rather than less. It's now on them to keep things consistent, on them to interpret the information, on them to rule on edge cases that crop up and they'll come up a lot because there's fewer specified stats. Which, as a DM, I don't want. I want fewer maybes and less overhead.
Yeah i totally agree. The biggest thing I don't like is the removal of the creature's ability scores/saves. What happens when any of the caster classes cast a spell that requires a save? Does the DM really have to go check the separate (actually complete) statblock just to check the wis/con/dex/whatever save of a creature? we gain nothing by not including the scores and saves and now the DM has to go search for the actual stats any time a caster casts a save-based spell.
I agree as well. It seems to me that what Bob is going for is taking the simplifications from games like shadowdark and icrpg and trying to port them to 5e. I understand the impulse to remove all the strange fiddly bits of the game, and it works well in those other systems. But you can't just do that in one place in the 5e system. Lots of other things in the system use or proc off those fiddly bits. As an experienced DM this is totally your prerogative to do, but I think claiming this is easier for new DMs is a bit misleading. Hacking the system to this extent is an advanced move. I also don't think WOTC should be printing stat blocks for their system that ignore core rules which seems to be what was being advocated for at least in the first video. Also i think if you are going to play fast and lose with distance (which is a totally legit way to play) it cant just be on the GM side. I don't think this is Bob intent to only do this on one side of the screen, but to clarify as advice to new GMs if you are gunna play dark vision and movement speed this way for your monsters you really should play it that way for the PCs as well
@@nickromanthefencer But didnt you hear Bob?? It's EASY to just go into google and find the information! Look, you can search "Goblinoids" and it will bring up all the "Goblinoids"~!! Clearly, this is superior to having that information already-handy, on the stat block.
@@nickromanthefencer My first optimization is to just include the three most common saves and their strongest save if it's an uncommon one. The "defences" line on my compressed statblocks reads "AC 18 DEX 6 CON 2 WIS 6 (STR 9)". This also gives information at a glance as to the general physique of the monster, how it might behave and so on without being overwhelming. HP goes on line 1 solo since I need to write that on my initiative notebook often, and lines after that are heavily compressed attacks (name, to-hit, damage, rider) and abilities (DC magnitude, type, effect)
So this does seem very geared towards theatre of the mind. Exact measurements help with higher tactical based games.
I think the section about the creature type doesn't consider the slew of other abilities that are affected by creature type. Divine smite, turn undead, dominate beast/person, etc.
While this likely does work for your game, I'll still stand by the original blocks for being more informative.
I believe he "included" that info as a blurb on top. He actually "gave" in on that point.
Exact measurements are for players. DMs can use an ability and keep it on that number without having the game babysit them.
@@PangoriaFallstar lol what? So the mechanical rules only apply to the players and the DM can just do whatever they want? Nah, the base rules and mechanics should apply equally to both sides; its the most fair way of doing things. The only exception should be specific rules/ mechanics for specific monsters/ encounters.
@@PangoriaFallstar I think my issue with that is it purely leaves the issue up to DM fiat to execute "fun". Shockingly, tactics can be fun. Me performing my monster at the absolute max level possible is fun for me and often fun for players who enjoy tactical play. Those tactics sometime involve outraging the enemy. If the enemy has no range limit, that goes away.
@@Reapor234 yes. The DM already does. If its unfair, the players leave. But the DM can just cover the troll in oil of fire resistance.
The DM can take a venom troll stat block, make it into a minotaur with a gore attack, and give it a green dragon breath.
As long as its fun, and the players find it engaging, it doesn't matter. If you can't trust your DM, why are they the DM?
In the other video you left a reply under a comment where you agreed and said: "A [full] stat block, and a version of that stat block that I can copy right into my notes and understand in the middle of combat."
Maybe its me, but that did not come across back then. I guess thats also why several comments mentioned it. Early in todays video you said, googling something gives a full result in 5 seconds. Thats true, IF the full stat block exists and can be looked up. Under the assumptions that the 5e statblock is too verbose in general and needs trimming in all instances, you dont get the option to google the complete rules, because the rules got cut down and the trimmed stat block is the full ruleset.
And I think thats where the frustration came from. I believe people did not read you as "hey my homebrew stat block looks like this" and more like "hey, the game would be better if we practically removed several rules, or made them obscure to look up". Obviously anyone who uses these rules would then object, and that they did.
Yeah... That's how I saw it. I was like "Bob's off his meds again.", because yeah... The changes he made would just make the game more cumbersome for the DM.
I would say the creatures saving throws are important... because players can throw around a vicious mockery and now I'm either just rolling a d20 or I'm making up the bonus. My preference though.
nah, you're right. TONS of abilities and spells require the target to make a specific save, and most of the monsters in the manual have unique saves and stat bonuses that are key to making them actually feel different from each other and not just bags of hit points that deal a set number of damage per turn.
Most monsters have a set bonus to their saves. It’s just their stat + that bonus. Which is very easy to include as a single set number on their block. With the words: Save Bonus.
Oooo, I love that immunity/resistances are next to to hp/ac
Maybe we should split D&D...like have a "Basic" version with simpiler stat blocks and other mechanics and an "Advanced" version with more detail and more complex mechanics...nah, it'd never work.
🧐 that may just be crazy enough to work
Sword world 2.5 have this with simplified combat. Infact it has 3 types for you to choose how you want to play
Did that in the 80's.
Crazy that it seems people didn’t realise the joke there, or maybe I’m reading their comments wrong
LOL
I rather enjoyed the initial and condensed stat blocks from the first video and inspired me to try it out with my own custom monsters. These updates are just bonuses to help clarify the condensed blocks along with this video. Keep up the great work and I hope these changes help you and your custom monsters out!
I know this isnt the point (and also another thin widely complained about) but subtype can be relevant for summoning spells like greater demon as the type is Fiend(Demon).
And the starter adventure creatures have one big issue, which i think could come up easily: a kid tries to grapple and you don't know the strength of the creature, or do anything that requires a saving throw
There it is. And yeah, a GM can intuit that a horse-sized frog creature is probably difficult to grapple, but if they think it’s easy, that’s fine too. The PDF teaches the GM basic DCs: 10 easy, 15 medium, 20 extreme. Just pick a number. Anyone can do this.
@BobWorldBuilder The statblocks are simplified for the sake of not overwhelming new DMs. Requiring a new DM to make decisions based on how the system generally works sounds mighty stressful. How is a brand new DM to know how hard grappling a horse sized creature is numerically unless they're familiar with other statblocks which defeats the whole point?
@@BobWorldBuilder How are they supposed to do that without the relevant info?
I'm not really sure that this is different from the Bugbear argument, except potentially more stark. If you're looking at a stat block to see if a thing is an Elemental (for example), either your pool of choices is ALREADY things you have reason to think are Elementals OR you don't.
If its the latter, it's hideously impractical. If it's the former then either your source has monsters sorted by that info outside of the block ("here are all the Goblins!) OR it would be reasonable for DM to conclude the monster is whatever type based on the logic you're already using.
@@BobWorldBuilder Except it's not... People don't come to a 'learn to play D&D 5e' session to hear someone waffle for two hours about what is essentially their fan-fic about how they think the game's rules should work.
They go to those sessions to learn to play D&D 5e, by the rules of that system, because the rules of the system are what differentiate it from literally every other TTRPG out there.
Also; This entire stance is Extremely exclusionary of people who don't do well with improv, like this person is telling you they aren't. Some people make perfectly acceptable and fun DMs, because they're able to run games based off of the existing, pre-established rules of the game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a DM who can do well running a pre-made campaign, even if they struggle with improv.
As part of my prep, I just throw all the numbers into an easy to read spreadsheet. It's the best use of space for square paper.
The stat block should use everything you need to know on how to both run the creature and use it in combat without needing to read a long, lengthy description. Goblinoid is a cheap example. Many classes only effect undead and some creatures don't always appear to be undead, such as aberration. Druid wild forms only affect beasts, but not monstrosities. This is an important distinction when balancing druids. It also affects when the party wants talk, rather than murder hobo. It let's them know what language the creature speaks.
Lastly, it's in the title. It's not like it's in the actual stats. The DM can say that I need a goblin camp and can quickly identify all goblin types without needing to read into every monster entry to find goblin types.
Note. He's talking about SUB types, not monster types. Undead, beasts and monstrosities are all types, but for a subtype, it'd be something more like... Fiend (Demon).
I can accept many will be happy with the ultra slim-line versions, and I agree with simplification, but for me, I just can't remember details not in front of me and will face option paralysis having to decide on the fly. Maybe it is just my autistic/neuro-diverse brain, but I would much rather some is available but not used, than not available at all.
This is why I wish there were both in-depth and combat streamlined statblocks for all creatures. One to keep thing flowing quickly and one to look up if you forgot something.
Yes, but the point is that if a detail is forgotten (or just not clear in the original statblock), you as the GM are always free to just make up something fun for your group! The stat blocks, like all rules, are just guidelines.
This.
This video is still so weird. Solves problems that just aren't there for so many. I guess they are for some, but his stuff is just not useful for me.
@@calebbridges4748agreed
@@BobWorldBuilderthat's their problem tho, that it creates choice paralysis
3:47 The logic here is that by removing it, new DMs will have to refer to the flavor text or google it to find that information instead of having it easily accessible. This sounds like more work for the DM. Yes, I know it's in the first line of the flavor text, but is that true for every monster?
7:13 How far can that monster move in a turn? Do you think it can fly or swim? Can it see in the dark? Is it immune to any attacks? What kind of creature is it? So they are horse-sized frog people? Does that mean they are large size? Since they are frogs, does cold damage do more to them? How far can they hop? If my players use a spell that requires a Dexterity save, what do I roll? Do you think they can be reasoned with? If a player wants to talk to them, can they speak Common? Are they humanoid like Grung, or are they aberrations like Slaad? This puts a lot more work on the DM.
14:05 Okay, kick or rock? Is the monster swinging the rock in its hand, or is it throwing it? If it's throwing, how far can it throw the rock? If it can't throw the rock, why have a rock if its kick does the same damage?
Ok putting loot on monsters is a fantastic idea. Idk how that didn't occur to me until you said it.
Thanks! And thanks for actually watching to the end!
Regarding the statblocks in Peril in Pinewood: I think there are some important differences between that book and the Player's Handbook or Monster Manual that explain why they chose different statblock designs.
Because for me, when I first saw a D&D statblock, I had no problem at all understanding how it works. The creature type, size, alignment, movement speed, ability scores, senses, etc. are all things I already intuitively understand so they did not overwhelm me. The only thing a little confusing to me was the hit points being both one number and a dice notation, but not knowing how that works wasn't really a problem for anything as it still got the idea across.
But I was able to figure all this out because of my demographic: I'm a nerd and I have time for this kind of stuff (which I imagine goes for most people who play D&D). But as you said, the book you brought up was written for teachers, a demographic which I imagine has far less time at their disposal. The statblocks in that book are much faster to read than the bigger vanilla ones, which take a good 10-20 seconds. Which is completely fine by me, but less fine for teachers.
And why are they faster to read? No, not because they abbreviate everything like you did. Having to look up what abbreviations like "A" or "RC" stand for would only take more time. No, it's because the monsters themselves are simple, because these monsters serve only one specific purpose in one specific campaign. Egg snatchers probably won't have to make an intelligence check in the game, so indeed might as well leave that out to save time. But monsters in the Monster Manual can be used in any campaign, encountered by any character, and interacted with in any way so you just need more information, even if most of it is unused most of the time. In short: they simplified the entire game in that book, so yeah the statblocks would be simpler as well then.
I'm glad you bolded the abilities. That was my only real problem 😂
Accepting fair criticism and improving your design is the best possible response.
So, sure, I get it, HP, AC, and Damage, that's all you really need and you can do everything with that and improvise the rest. I've done it. I have 36 years experience and yeah, ezpz. But... when I buy a book from WotC or Kobold Press or someone else, I prefer complete stat blocks. I just ran a session where knowing stats that weren't AC, HP, and Damage helped because my players did a pacifist run through a dungeon! And sure, I could have hand waved everything for rule of cool, but they loved rolling for it, and loved knowing they "earned" it with the planning they put in and I wasn't just "giving" it to them because I thought it was cool. Regardless, published adventures *should* contain as much information as the system demands from it. I do *NOT* want to be flipping around for the monster stats. The ONLY reason stat blocks are the way they are is to save on printing costs.
But, having short stat blocks isn't bad. It works if your group expects it to worth that way. However...
Are shorter stat blocks better? I say no. The design and presentation are important, but the size of the stat block serves a different purpose. The purpose? Printing space. I contend that overall, more people would be happier with a larger stat block over something small and minimalist. The goal is to improve design and presentation.
Case in point: RC. I've been playing for 36 years, and I've DM'ed every edition (and many non-D&D games as well) and I didn't realize that was recharge until you mentioned it. Yes, obvious in hindsight, but with the goal of "picking up a stat block and knowing how to use it" RC failed me. However, Recharge would have worked better and been more clear. RC is what? R*** Class? I don't know, but most everything else with 2 letters is 2 words, and A for attack is one word, so... I was confused. But Recharge? ezpz. So why not give it more room to breath? Why obsess over a few letters?
The issue isn't that stat blocks are large or small. It's that they aren't treated with the same love and care many character sheets are treated. They are just treated as splats of text. And I get it, there is a lot of history there with stat blocks. But I contend that's not because they are good, but rather, the best people could come up with years ago.
Instead of focusing on the size, focus on the presentation and design. You wanted something small. I want something useful. One sets criteria in terms of some objective thing that can be achieved. 10 lines is better than 15 lines is better than 20. But is it? Really? I'd argue that instead of limiting ourselves to traditional stat blocks, it would serve us better to instead focus on rethinking it completely. Remove the limitations publishers have and instead say "how would I design monster sheet instead." So that everything is in the same place every time, use visual indicators to guide GMs, and present all the information needed without feeling cluttered.
I tend to not like shorter stat blocks in published works, but routinely use it for myself. However, I think what you really nailed on here is that current stat blocks aren't the best they can be. Personally, I think the white 3-ring-binder-based D&D monster books were the best monster books ever. Made photocopying monsters easier, made it easy to remove monsters to prep and put them back as needed. Made it easy add new monsters to the binder. That was someone who really cared about the DM designing not just the stat blocks, but the entire experience. That's what we should go back to.
Sorry this is long. I think your arguments are great for your table. I think this really sparks an interesting conversation beyond just stat blocks, but about making things easier to run in general. I foresee an experience where you have a full stat block well designed, and on that very sheet, it might provide the "short stat block" as well that can be inserted as needed, best of both worlds. That all being said, a loot table for monsters with the monsters would be great!
I was also wondering what RC stood for until it was said
I'm already annoyed by the low amount of content included in these expensive books
DMs should use a shorthand for copying stat blocks into their notes, but I expect published stat blocks to contain all the information, no matter how rare the use case is because in instances where those cases come up, it shouldn't be difficult to find the answer. Also, while the use case might be rare according to RAW, there are always new abilities being published or homebrewed that could make use of those bits of information.
Also, I know you prefer theater of the mind combat, but precise information such as where a giant frog is summoned is important to DMs who run a much more tactical game.
"Most hated" video equals. . . 92% approval, LOL, that subversion of setup expectations. And you doxed your hidey-hole! Oh, Bob, you goblinoid-cryptid, you! There are good ideas in both of your videos on this.
When I copy stat-blocks down in my notes for play, they are always much shortened and terse -- and when I have multiple similar creature types, I won't even recopy their shared stat info, I'll just write that info in black-ink and use different color ink for the parts of their stats that differ, so I have one stat-block that contains multiple creatures of the same family without any redundancy.
I really liked the first video. It reminded me of a research paper and how my supervisor cleaned up all the redundant text until information was crystal clear.
Knowledge happens between two channels. The text needs to be clear and the person needs to comprehend it.
Thank you!
We're running into an issue in Avernus with a brand new gm where we aren't sure what is considered a "humanoid" for the purposes of a hexblade's accursed specter ability. In this case, the statblock as written is actually _missing_ information (as opposed to having redundant info), but it fits in with that "subtype" issue brought up near the beginning of the video
Simplified "Combat" Statblocks belong in-line with the adventure text and descriptions of tactics and phases(if applicable). The larger statblocks belong in the back of the book with the complete information.
1 cool thing to add to your homebrew rule is to have your player having a monster encyclopedia. They can role intelligent check to learn more about the creatures they just encountered and copy parts or all of the monster stat block to their encyclopedia
Yep, love this kind of thing!
Or let their players fill in the details. Game as collaborative storytelling.
Lookin' at that tunnel real carefully... either Jersey Devil or Raatma waiting in there.
The positive community and content is part of why I love this channel XD and we all do things we think or gold then in hindsight wish we could change =) I took inspiration from the "stat" blocks in temple of elemental evil where ac, hp, and stat were just typed on on line along with atk and dmg. Very condensed.
I have been DMing for several years and personally never had trouble with reading lenghty stat blocks, but I find myself agreeing with basically everything you say in the video, especially for newer DMs. Streamlining means taking detail away and some of the comments see that as a negative, but you beautifully show how rough outlines can be used to kickstart creativity, evne on a statblock. Getting rid of every little descriptor invites improvisation of attacks and abilities that I would have frankly never thought about in the more detailed original version. I will never understand people getting upset or angry for you ... trying to help people and streamlining the process? Love the video, keep up the good work!
Awesome video! As both a sewer worker and a DM, this had everything I need in a video ❤
Massive respect. If I used stat blocks, I'd probably use ones like yours.
Haha you're on another level!
Love this project. And you're totally on the right track. I love RPGs with stripped down, easy-to-run stat blocks.
An example from 13th Age, which is a great spin on trad DnD:
Minotaur
Large 4th level troop [humanoid]
Initiative: +8
Axe or horns +9 vs. AC-27 damage, and one of the minotaur’s allies can pop free from the target as a free action
Furious charge: The attack instead deals 40 damage on a hit if the minotaur first moves before attacking an enemy it was not engaged with at the start of its turn.
Blood frenzy: Minotaurs gain a +4 melee attack bonus against staggered enemies.
Nastier Specials
Durable: The first time each round the minotaur takes damage, prevent 2d6 of it.
Fear: While engaged with this creature, enemies that have 24 hp or fewer are dazed (-4 attack) and do not add the escalation die to their attacks.
HP 94 AC 19 PD 17 MD 13
An example from Dragonbane, a great OSR-adjacent game I'm currently running:
Minotaur
Ferocity: 2
Size: Large
Movement: 16
Armor: - HP: 32
Typical Gear: Two-handed axe
D6 ATTACK
1 Bull Fist! A furry fist hits a player character with full force. The attack inflicts 2D6 bludgeoning damage and leaves the victim Dazed, even if their armor prevents any damage.
2 Hoof Kick! Using its powerful legs, the minotaur kicks the victim with its hooves. The force of the attack throws the victim 2D6 meters away and inflicts the same amount of bludgeoning damage. The victim lands prone.
3 Horn Rush! The minotaur lowers its head and rushes toward two adventurers within 2 meters of each other, hoping to impale them with its sharp horns. Both victims suffer 2D8 piercing damage and are knocked down.
4 Cleaving Chop! The beast swings its weapon over its head and brings it down with full force. The attack inflicts weapon damage plus an extra D10, and can be parried.
5 Sweeping Attack! The minotaur roars and sweeps its weapon in a wide arc, hitting everyone within 2 meters. The attack inflicts weapon damage.
6 Stomping Attack! The minotaur jumps high in the air and comes crashing down on an adventurer, who suffers 2D10 bludgeoning damage and is knocked down.
After I made this, I started getting into the idea of adding tables like that! Seems like such a fun way to run a monster.
@@BobWorldBuilder It really is. "Don't look at me, it's not MY fault the wight used its most powerful charge attack two turns in a row!"
I absolutely love your moving around the sewer drain, great camera placement, really jazzed it up my guy. Good content as well, I agree with you on your thesis as well.
Love the Squonk comments, good old Pennsylvania folklore and a awesome Genesis song! Great video as always!
I think this all boils down to the intended purpose of the statblock.
If we're just talking a shortened version of the full monster info to be used as a reference in combat...then all you need is AC, HP, attacks, any *relevant* special abilities for combat, and maybe a note on what tactics the creature typically uses. Everything else can stay in the monster manual.
That's a far cry different than making changes to the overall information provided for the monster's main entry.
Yup.
And these are things GM's often do themselves for quick reference sheets, it's often included on printable initiative trackers. The thing is that it's often not enough information once you get out of the first couple levels and start running into monsters with special abilities and passive effects so you keep going back to the normal statblock which will thankfully have that information.
Bob wants to turn what should basically be the bare necessities for a short improvised encounter with simple monsters or one that the GM already prepared in advance by studying the block beforehand into the default method of listing all monster stats.
@@Tomeroche yeah, I prep by putting vital stats on 3x5 note cards. They work as statblock, initiative tracker, HP tracker, everything...
And you're right, at higher levels (especially playing Pathfinder 1e), a short stat block ain't gonna cut it for more than your basic minions.
Book stats need to be detailed, and include all the specific info. Ranges, areas of effect, any interactions of note, special ability details, and monster tactics. Plus the fluff.
@@Tomeroche Fair enough. I see your point. I guess ultimately it comes down to how one does game preparation. Myself, I've run entire sessions without ever grabbing a Monster Manual... Much like in the modules I grew up with (80's...) any info you need to run a monster was written right there, and I write my adventures the exact same way. I'm not claiming to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all monster stats but, I really only ever reach for one when I have to make an important judgement call...
New DM here, I'm subscribing thanks to this vid. You made me think of a lot of things that never really came to mind before and now I'll be able to really focus on information that is truly important while I am running my campaign. Great work, I'm looking forward to more!
Ranger Bob’s favored enemy subtype: Traveloid (Planes, Trains, and Automobiles)
I like having more detailed stat blocks. Having a short and abbreviated block can leave to questions that especially a newer DM may not know what to do. These more detailed blocks are there to be guidelines too. Nothing in these types of games is set in stone. I am not opposed to you or other DM's using this style, but I know it is not my cup of tea. Thanks for continuing to have interesting videos Bob.
While I have no issue with the change your logic for omitting subtype clashes with your logic for alignment/size. Since information not given will be assumed to be the default value, without being given a subtype we will just assume a humanoid creature is the default humanoid (presumably human.) Flavor text outside of the statblock may not be read/ignored. Relatively niche to come up, I agree, but where relevant we're now just assuming default values for subtypes which can be mechanically relevant. Especially when the DM is caught unaware and now is caught between trying to be mechanically fair and keeping the scene going.
Love this Bob! Even though I run a pretty different game to you, this is going to revolutionize how I print out my stat blocks for my games. I'm definitely going to adapt ideas from this into my own stat block template. I especially love the short blurb at the top. Having that would actually be really helpful, since it can be pretty hard to remember the differences between certain monsters, especially for new GMs (Manticores and Chimeras for instance).
Is that the typface lexend in your statblock?
Yeah I noticed you using it stuff recently too haha, great minds!
Yo... it's a Google font as well... yoinking this for future projects, thanks!
Shapechanger is a subtype, which affects moonbeam and most polymorph spells
It's a subtype that can be inferred from the fact they have "Shapechange" in their abilities.
The fallacy of the "wall at the end of sight" since our vision degrades over distance until it is ineffective. It does not simply stop at some invisible barrier.
Nicely said and explained!
I really enjoyed your previous video on streamlining stat blocks. I don't see why people would feel the need to quibble with you over the "one true way" to communicate info (every GM is different). The value I see in these videos is to get people thinking about what they find efficient, what works best for them at their table, and what changes they would make. We are all different people, everyone has their own theories, and that's awesome. I love your videos because they get me thinking about my own game.
That is absolutely the message! Thank you for your understanding!
@@BobWorldBuilder I also read "Peril In Pinebrook", and while they could have been less wordy outlining the adventure, the stat blocks are refreshingly simple, ...even the ones for pregenerated characters.
Sounds like the push and pull between rules light lovers and number crunchers. Both are great! Do what you like!
Your paired down stats & attacks for monsters of just the name, modifier, and damage dice is how I've been condensing all of my encounters into post-its for years. I have a single line or two of description for myself, in my notes, but the post-its are on my DM screen and can hold all my encounters for sometimes multiple sessions on just one to two. The flavorful descriptions and wall of info is great and a fun read when going through the monster manual for inspiration, but when you're behind the screen those descriptions are yours to play with and mold. How best to convey an umberhulk breaching the surface and assaulting your party depends on the group, the location, the tone - but that hit is stagnant data and its all you need when you're actually running the session. Amazing video Bob.
The walking shot at 60 seconds was cool
I love this, I have done something pretty similar with reducing the stat blocks. Love including a line of Loot!
I think its important in the stat block attacks to write out "Action" "Bonus Action" "Reaction." It was the only thing I didn't immediately understand. I looked and saw A and it didn't click. If I had never played before, I think I'd either be confused or ignore the (A). With a video to explain it immediately makes sense but just looking at paper I'm not so sure
to answer the question at 9:30 There is a jabberwocky in the tunnel
In my opinion - the thing that you're missing about the 'bloat' in those statblocks, is that extra padding is what provides flavour.
eg.. Displaying the STR score of a mighty monster gives more flavour than just a modifer (eg STR 20 conveys "oooh that guy is strong" or INT 5 "ooooh that guy dumb). Sure the modifer gives the same DATA but TTRPGs is an exercise of imagination not data. And .. in my opinion.. there is more perceived difference between a 18 score vs 20 score than +4 vs +5.
I can skim read the stat block of a monster in the 5e Monster Manual or Flee Mortals and get a sense of the flavour of that creature without having to dive into the text above it.
I'm glad that you as an experienced DM can get a post-it note of numeric data and that's all you need to run a meaningful encounter. It's great that works for you. And I've no doubt, based on your channel's content that your games are immersive, imaginative experiences.
But I strongly disagree that your version of the stat block that you're advocating in these videos should be the norm in published material. Yeah, maybe it's more functional... I guess??? .. but it sucks the joy out of those books as a standalone text.
I skim read those books for inspiration for my next adventures and if it was just numbers I wouldn't pick the book up in the first place.
Hot take, the extra text creates open design space, things like size, speed, subtype, ect gives more space to create different creatures that feel different mechanically.
True? But removing them entirely literally leaves infinite gradation for design space.
@BobWorldBuilder I feel a similar way about damage types in 5e, like it feels like their only purpose is to increase the amount of spells, slash to make weapons diffent then each other, but mechanically do nothing different, but I am torn if that means I want them to do unique things or not? Like would it be better if all slashing attacks reduced speed and all bludgeoning attacks had knockback? However this rant is off the topic at hand.... I think I like the hybrid approach of a small stat block with a mm reference number to look things up as needed?
Our imagination has infinite design space! Check out EVERYTHING IS A BEAR by Alone in The Labyrinth
All you need is the bear stat block for anything really
HOW DARE YOU insinuate that GMs and players should use their imaginations and fill in gaps in texts?!! Heresy!!! There must be a rule for everything or else Chaos will reign!!!
For real though, I love you, man. Thank you for advocating for more FUN in RPGs.
Is it fun to be forced to fill in the blanks in a campaign book that costs $60 because the designers decided to do less work in, yknow, the design?
Bob, super cool video, and I'm on board with simplified stat blocks, but that hole definitely has an evil clown in it somewhere at the back, in the darkness, so maybe find somewhere else to live.
Great video boss. My terrible ADHD and dyslexia are soothed with the streamlined stat blocks. love your ideas around writing the stat blocks in notes as a truncated box.
Thanks! :)
A true bob world builder enjoyer knows Bob's favoured enemy is loud public transport
Good stuff, and fully agreed. I have gone over to Shadowdark and the short concise and punchy stat blocks have brought back some of the joy to my session prep and are much easier to reference in game.
Thanks Bob! I think these are great ideas.
I'm a little confused on where multi attack would go if a creature has it. If Bob or someone else wants to explain that to me I'd appreciate it.
I doubt he would want it, as to him, it seems that any statblock that's longer than like, 2 abilities and a single attack is too long. God forbid the statblock even include ability scores or saves..
What I can say is this: if you are aiming to gut the flavor and make things more concise, you are cutting the reason to play D&D.
If I need to rely on my imagination, I won't bother with D&D. My group and I will just joke around with system-free ideas. We go to the system for mechanics, rules & flavor that we can then use or ignore as we see fit. Having it in the stat block saves us the work the might need to do.
"We all float here, @BobWorldBuilder"
I need subtypes right there bc I allow all characters to make a 'know your enemy' bonus action once per encounter to see if they know something particular about it.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY
Once per encounter and after rolling initiative, PCs can attempt to identify aspects of the enemy as a bonus action. Regardless of outcome, once attempted, PCs may only try again after a long rest representing later contemplation, experience, study or investigation.
DC is 7+ creature’s CR. No DC may be lower than 10 or higher than 30. Beating base DC = 1 aspects known. Beating DC by 5 = 2 aspects known and beating DC by 8+ = 3 aspects known.
Depending on the creature type, different skills are used to identify each.
The player must have proficiency in at least one of the following skills per enemy type;
Aberration | Arcana
Beast | Animal Handling, Nature, or Survival
Celestial | Arcana or Religion
Construct | Arcana
Dragon | Arcana, History, or Nature
Elemental | Arcana or Nature
Fey | Arcana or Nature
Fiend | Arcana or Religion
Giant | History
Humanoid | History
Monstrosity | Nature or Survival
Ooze | Arcana or Survival
Plant | Nature or Survival
Undead | Arcana or Religion
On a success, the player may choose from the following aspects to know;
Creature type
AC
Alignment
Hit Dice
Speed(s)
Ability scores
Saving throws (all)
Skills (can ask for top 3)
Vulnerabilities
Resistances & immunities
Extra senses
Languages
CR
Special traits
Attacks/reactions
Limited use
Equipment
Mothman is definitely coming out of that drain pipe...
I'm still for keeping the base numbers for the stat blocks, but then my homebrew borrows from Five Torches Deep (i.e. those numbers have real effects). There's where I'd make an arguement for keeping extraneous/redundant data - if I'm designing a baddie and I want it to be useable in multiple systems. If you're sticking to using them in just one system and that system doesn't need that granularity, I'm all for dumping the data you don't need and keeping what you do.
The stat blocks in my homebrew aren't much different than yours, actually...
Your coolness is always refreshing, dude.
@0:56 Bob looks like a tiny Bob ant telling you his wisdom from the confines of your gardens grass
You know what I don't need to have more fun in D&D? The constant plane updates.
(And yeah, I am a professional location recordist and editor. I know why you don't want the plane noise, but just edit the bad takes out like a normal person. This was amusing the first two times, now it's just... inefficient.)
Also, I love you. ♥
Great video with great points. Love the format and the joke at the end made me chuckle.
10/10
Thanks! :)
2:20... Yah, and ya _failed_ on that point is what we're saying. With a sample D&D stat block, you can slap the stat block down... JUST the stat block... in front of _any_ player, and they have ALL the rules they could possibly need to play as that creature, without having to look for other resources or GUESS on ANYTHING, no matter _what_ situation that creature is in, or what mechanical lever related to it is being pulled on. (EDIT: At worst, you will need to look up what the spells the creature can cast do; but that's IT.)
But since you seem hung up that this specific example was used; How about Moonbeam vs a Shapechanger? Besides that, what if you wanted to brew a magical item that does something like, I don't know, glows while in the presence of orcs? Or repels specifically devils, but not necessarily demons or any other kind of fiend?
As for the pared down statblocks in PiP, look at the context for the rest of that adventure. The whole thing is pared down, and is an EXTREMELY controlled experience. The pregen character sheets also don't have any visible ability scores or modifiers, saving throws, skills that aren't the thing the character is proficient in, the casters each get one spell that they can do twice for the whole game, and anything that requires a roll that isn't a d6 or a d20 just takes the average roll, because the adventure is meant to be run as a baby game for babies, and there's _no_ flexibility in the adventure _at all._
Bob... I think you did a better job explaining why the Ranger's Favored Enemy ability is kinda useless than you did defending your original stat block changes. 😏
The new stat blocks are definitely better. I said on the first video that I wanted something that was kinda between yours and the official version and I think you've done a good job of accomplishing that. Well done!
Over simplification is as bad as over complexification. I strongly feel that the MM books should have complete stat blocks. BUT they should also include simplified stat blocks as examples to use for GM (young or experienced). Monsters/foes should be presented as we are used to see them, then at the end, photocopiable sheets with condensed stat block could be made available. This way, a DM could print these on card boards, cut them and use the "summarized" stats while (if needed) the full stat blocks are still present in the book, available for consultation in case the need arise. It would only add a few pages but would add a big quality of life. It would also show young GM how prep is usefull for a game while allowing free form to be readily available.
Remember "over" simplification/complexification, and the idea of a "complete" stat block is 100% subjective.
You could even use these simplified sheets to show monsters that work well together. Like having goblins, hobgoblin, bugbears, wolves and worgs as simplified statblocks on the same sheet to easily reference monsters used together in an encounter.
No it isn't
@@BobWorldBuilder Sure, but at some point, too little will hamper understanding and efficiency. A middle ground can and should be reached. You and I (and any experienced GM) probably don't even need the stat blocs at all even for the most "complex" critters in the DMG. But that is not the case for every GM out there. I have coached a lot of young DM/GM over the years and too little is really a thing and too much is also a thing. The middle ground is to create "dual" stat blocs where you have a complete one and streamlined ones at the end. I often give this advice to new GM and once they start doing it, their game improves a lot. They still need to access the full stat bloc from time to time as a way to remind them some little snippets, but overall, it does help.
A complete stat block would be like AD&D (1ed) and a streamlined one looks a lot like Shadow Dark (which is exactly how I streamline myself and how I show young GM how to do).
@@jamieadams2589 A great idea! Young GM are often in need of such examples.
I think I'm one of the few that agreed with you from the beginning, I absolutely hate having to read so much just to get to what I need to know and I think even some spells could benefit from shortening some text
4e tried to solve these issues people rebelled so we ended up where we are in 5e
Thank you! And I agree about spells
I've even seen the argument to condense saves on custom stat blocks to 1 of 3 words. A monster is either Tough (good Str, Con saves) Agile (good dex saves) or Wise (Good wis, int saves.) And you can leave it with that until you actually have to make then save then just add a value that feels right.
@@secretlyaslug2325 stat blocks should have built-in personality that the DM is free to ignore, not basic, flavorless barebones info that *requires* the DM to make snap judgements. What is a DM actually paying for if they have to constantly make up their own rules on the fly? the whole point of a book is to let a DM just follow what's in it.
The Giant Frog paratroopers are coming!
This is GREAT! No, it's not supposed to be a "Monster Manual", it's just the notes you need at the table.
Thank You Bob! I'm getting my copy now!
Oh, Oh, new monster. The terrifying Giant Paratrooper Frog who ride on some flying creature and leap into the fight for their brother Froglins.
Loving these wilderness-based videos, Bobbo.
I suspect since you are on the east part of the US, it would be either the Jersey Devil or a Skinwalker that comes at you through the tunnel.
Since you mentioned the northeast U.S., I have to go with my home state cryptid, The Jersey Devil.
If not listing damage type means I can desperately try to convince the DM that anything that breaks skin is technically piercing damage, then I’m all for it.
I really like your style! I'd love a game that's similar in rules to Shadowdark but with less focus on gritty dungeons and darkness, and more on weird magic and travels. The obvious name for this hack should be Shadowlight 🤣
The Squonk is gonna get you, the most terrifying creature that will tear you to peaces (granted it's range is north eastern PA)
Two points about subtypes:
1. They can be useful for categorisation in things like books and D&D Beyond.
2. There are groups where it can be important, for example whether a Fiend is a Devil, a Demon or a Yugoloth, most descriptions do say but a subtype is quicker to read (Especially somewhere like D&D Beyond where the descriptions aren't automatically shown but subtypes are) and some descriptions do lack it.
The way you write these things reminds me of older D&D stat blocks for creatures. It was really good for quickly adding new monsters on random encounter tables or referencing them to make those tables. The treasure drops is really a time saver too. Awesome.
i'd like to say i love the positivity you try to stick to. i actually actively search for positive content and cut out the negativity, and i'm happy to say you make the cut. I HEARTILY AGREE that the clearly issue is that what and why information is on the stat block was not properly defined. with that said "you're wrong because i say so" isn't really an argument. sharing your own preferences to maybe show other people what they could do is a great way to teach world building so yeah thanks for sharing your methods and preferences.
i personally treat a stat blocks like creature cards, so if i have reference a book for more details when i have a stat block, there is not enough info on it for me, but if i ONLY used it for how to use them in combat your method might work better for me.
Moth man is in the cave!
Nah. If mothman was in there, he would get eaten by a grue.
If you hear crying from that tunnel, it's a Squonk
I honestly still disagree that this extremely slimed down version would be helpful to new GMs. While I do think a lot of stat blocks are overly wordy and can definitely be paired down. The hardest part for me is always when I encounter something that is explained somewhere else in the book and I have to go look it up. I have a very difficult time holding all of the information in my head at once. Its also a bit of a leap imo to say a new GM would be able to intuit what +4 (1d6+4) means without some experience playing dnd before. And as someone who uses maps and enjoys battle tactics movement speed is useful. I do get that this is mostly for how you run games, but you are pitching this as something for everyone, and you can't eliminate base mechanics of the game if that's the case. I don't mean for this to come off as mean or anything just explaining my position
I agree with you. I do concur that shortening stat block can be done, and should be done - but requiring a forward to 'decode' a monster does not help an old or new GM. These monster blocks still need easily identifiable keywords to intuit what each item means. Shortening the description, abilities, senses, movement, and general abilities is done perfectly with little impact to the game. Thus, I think Bob is 90% of the way there - but went overboard with the actions. Using the 5e stat blocks as our reference point, please RE-ADD keywords/shorthand to your actions. Example:
**Actions
Kick/Rock. Melee. To Hit: +4 On Hit: 5 (1d4+2) bludgeoning
Tongue. Ranged - Near. DC 12 ??Save type?? - Grappled, froglin pulled to target.
Croaking Chant. Recharge 6. chanting with 5 other froglins summons 1 *Giant Frog*
**Bonus Actions
Slippery. disengage or hide
**Reactions
Poison Skin. When touched, target makes a DC 12 con save or be poisoned, with repeat saves to end.
Each item remains 1-ish line, but is much easier to parse. It uses identifies that are short, and can be copied from monster to monster for easy, quick referencing. Is the entire thing longer? Yes, but by an insignificant amount of space. How many monsters are you fitting on a print out anyways? Using the classic 5e monster stat blocks I regularly get ~6 stat blocks on a single page, which is honestly all I need for single encounter. Thus, I dont need to shrink the stat blocks because my entire encounter is already on one page.
Yep, I've been pasting immunities, resistances, regeneration etc. next to the HP's for years.
This is a massive improvement.
Didn't notice until the end of the video, but I love that a brief physical description merited a spot on this minimalist stat block; that plus the loot really drive home what the opportunity cost of including a bunch of not-particularly-useful things can be.
That first scenario:
Same thing, but against a major Bugbear boss and the ranger has an Arrow of Goblin Slaying.
Fun missed out on; The cost of the 'Very Rare' magic item, and a loss of 6d10 damage.
I stand by my original thoughts on your suggestions for the 5e stat block redesign. It's not a bad idea if the DM, for some reason, wants to write down their own version of the statblock.
It's a terrible idea for a mass-produced game that is literally over-designed to be as easy to understand at a casual glance as possible. Yes, some of the information is unnecessary, or redundant, but that can all be placed on the stat blocks being standardized across all monsters.
If the stat blocks are standardized, then specific odd cases where the minutia matters (like whether or not specific monsters have a specific subtype) can be more easily interpreted in terms of whether or not some key information being excluded was intentional for mechanical reasons.
Anyone who has played the hobby long enough, and at enough tables, can tell you how important 'rules as written vs. rules as intended' is for some people. D&D, with its multiple editions and long history of rules-lawyer players, would know this lesson better than most. With popularity comes a wide diversity of players, and a game that has a player base many times over your entire view count, and literal decades of marketing data to draw upon, will likely have a far better basis for stating
"This stat block was created with the benefit of the most players possible in mind"
than anything you've ever produced on this channel could ever hope to achieve.
*Addendum: Listing exactly 1 of the beginner adventures produced for D&D 5e as proof that WotC 'agrees with you', when you know full well there are many more that give full stat blocks for all of their creatures, is incredibly disingenuous of you and you know it.
Yeah, this video really just felt like a lot of "Well that's just like... my opinion, man..." instead of understanding why people had the criticisms they did. The weird flip-flopping on whether or not his opinion was actually subjective, or if this would be better than the statblocks we have was really annoying.
Im gonna be honest, i really dont agree with your creature type (goblinoid) argument. Its a single small wordt next to the creature size. A thing not even that quickly seen and one can easily ignore it as you wont be looking it over that much any al the way on the top of the stat block. Its a thing i like to be there so you can look it up if it does come up, becouse just becouse it doesnt happen often there are rules for it. So imagine if you do have something that uses it but now the DM has to look through the more bloated information section you now also have to make ordered becouse i need to know the same types of info of each creature.
8:10 that's the thing some people have hindered one, that's why they demand vervose so they can replicate.
On the subject of the video, masterfully excecuted, and thanks for the streamlined form.
And the cryptid is a Worldbuilder, know for dragging their prey into other planes